this year's theme is road to the white house. students were asked what issues do you want residential candidates to discuss? one of our second prize high school central winners is from jenks, oklahoma. grader burnett, a 12th wants candidates to discuss the cost of medication. in his video entitled "the price is not right." >> every morning thead wakes up and begins drive to langley, oklahoma. i had always thought the pharmaceutical industry was boring. i learned about the dissension that lie within the pharmaceutical industry. up the nextaking morning and find the price of the exact same pill jumped $750 overnight.

>> is time to do with skyrocketing out-of-pocket costs and runaway drug prices. >> millions of people take these drugs every month and in many cases can't afford them. >> drug companies have a near monopoly in which the government says everybody has to have insurance, everyone's insurance is to cover certain things, and drug companies take advantage of that. >> the pharmaceutical industry in this country is charging the american people, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. brandon: to better understand this issue, we must look at why the cost of medication has been rising. >> one reason the cost is rising is due to competition. you are buying your competition out, and you two both at the same medications, that means you have a monopoly on it so you can charge whatever you want to charge because there are no caps or limits. >> the drug manufacturers, if it

is a brand name drug, they can make it as high is they want because they are the ones who have the patent for that particular medication, so no one else can produce that medication. so, they can make the price as high as the need to because they know people need it. >> we also have some newer companies behaving differently from companies in the past when they buy the rights to manufacture drugs. then turn around and try to immediately fund their purchase of that product by skyrocketing the cost overnight.

>> we paid a very, very large amount to buy unprofitable medicine, we can't continue to lose money on the drug at that price, so we went to a price where we can make a comfortable profit. >> if a medication cost the pharmacy, $50, let's say, for the pharmacy to obtain the medication, and the insurance is only going to pay the pharmacy $20 for that medication, the pharmacy lost $30 because the insurance doesn't recognize the fact the medication has increased in price. the pharmacist has a decision to make, do you dispense the medication and lose $30, or did you tell the person that you can't do this because your insurance is not reimbursing me. no business can stay in business losing $30 each transaction. >> it is hard because the customers think it is us, personally raising those prices. that is just not how it is. >> there was a customer buying cholesterol medication and it was $4 for several years and out of nowhere it spiked up to $50. they were very shocked and confused and angry, and wanted answers from me that i could not give.

>> we hear from pharmacists and our legislation is supported by the pharmacists of america. they stand behind their desk, behind their counters, and their hearts are broken when senior citizens cannot afford the products that their doctors are prescribing. when people are dying and when people are suffering and we have the cure right in front of us here. >> some people who have no insurance coverage have seen their cash prices for their medications rise significantly. >> i always look at medications with two things in mind. they have to work and they have to not cause problems. years ago when i first got into practice, we mostly were talking about problems in terms of medication side effects or allergic reactions. now we have to consider that one of the problems might be the patient cannot afford the

medication. it may be the best medication but if the patient can't afford it, it is not the right medicine. >> they might have been paying $10 but this year they are paying $45 a month. if you are on a couple medications, that adds up. >> and they have to decide if they are going to take medication every day as prescribed, or maybe every other day or every third day in order to make it stretch out longer. that way they can afford to pay for food or bills that are due. that way they can utilities at their house. >> well, if nothing is changed, it is going to keep going as it is and it will get worse and you will see continued cost increases, continued availability issues, continued problems were patients have to switch their medication is working just fine because they can't afford it anymore. >> if it gets bad enough i think people will start going to mexico or canada. i know that people already do

that, but i think that will increase. peoples will start going to other countries to get their medication because it is cheaper there. >> every time i am selling a customer prescription that i know is i, i just hold my breath because i know they are going to be like, what? it is not anything i can control or my pharmacists. it is a rough situation. brandon: despite these problems, there are still those that justify the cost of medication. >> you guys have sd that the reason you gave was in order to give research and involvement in order to give a better version. i just got up the phone with an hiv doctor who says they do not need a better version. what are you doing here? >> that is not true. there is a recent paper that said two patients died. >> not every product being looked at will be approved by fda. for instance, out of maybe 12 compounds, it might take 10 years plus to research that compound. maybe one will be approved by fda. that is a lot of money the pharmaceutical industries have to pay for a lot of salaries to

research those 12 compounds. brandon: i live in a house divided, with my mother saying that the rise of cost is necessary to further the developments of these medications. my father on the other side, saying the rise of cost is preventing people who need these medications from receiving them. i understand my mother's point of view, but i can't help but sympathize with my father's. after researching the topic, i recognize my dad's job is much more than counting pills and filling out positions. i recognize the importance of his position. i recognize the importance of the pharmaceutical industry. announcer: to watch all the documentaries, visit studentcam.org. >> the pentagon lifted restrictions on women serving in combat roles. we will hear a debate from current and former military for snow next. british prime minister david cameron talks about the panama papers and his decision to publish his tax returns.

>> washington journal live every day with news on policy issues that impact you. morning, tuesday kristian berg, former deputy for theand the policy campaign legal center will join us to discuss the current role of money in american politics. efforts to reform the campaign finance system and the impact of citizenssupreme court united ruling. then center for responsible politics sheila crumble will talk about the latest 2015 .ampaign fund-raising numbers be sure to watch beginning live at seven eastern tuesday morning. join the discussion. >> now, current and former military officers on allowing women to serve in military combat positions. this comes after the defense department lifted all restrictions on women serving in combat roles including infantry

positions, reconnaissance, and special operations in its. the new york our association hosted this event. -- bar association hosted this event. whereome from washington think tanks and panel discussions are a way of life. some of them are not so good. i hope we have a great one tonight. i think you are aware that we are here to talk about an issue that is extremely important to the military and i would argue as a reporter who covers the , import and military into the nation the immigration -- integration of women in all roles in the military and in combat roles. what happened for those of you who may or may not be familiar with the contours of this issue is that the current defense secretary ash carter announced in december after three years of

study that all jobs would be open to women across the military. it was an interesting announcement i found sitting mr. carter has been the secretary since last year. very interested in this issue. make the announcement with standingnfare and alone at a podium in what we call the pentagon briefing room. the optics of the announcement struck me, and occurred to me that it contributed to the idea that there has been some debate about the issue. and what we are here to talk about tonight is a lot about that debate.

we had four panelists, and we have set this up a little bit as kind of for and against integration of women. the timing of this panel is interesting, really because of the decision has been made, so we kind of move out on the decision. there will be integration of women. it is not necessarily for against, but we are at a point where the pentagon is trying to

figure out how to implement this decision. so, i think this is a good, timely topic for right now. let me just quickly introduce the folks we had appeared -- up here. and then what i want to do is ask a few questions, or ask each of the panelists to stake out where they said, and explain where their position is. i'm not trying to make this a point counterpoint, you are ignorant and you are stupid, just want to have a substantive interesting conversation. i hopefully -- you guys have great questions. i have some questions, but i hope you have even that are ones

-- better ones, and we can get to the questions very soon after. let's start, let me just explain -- i carefully on the train rewrote these little bios, and i realized it was still too long. take it from me, these guys are all interesting people with varied backgrounds, different opinions. they have strong opinions on these issues, and i hope we will get them out here. in no particular order, dan o shea is to my left. he is a combat veteran with more than 25 years service in the military. i'm not going to read through this, but he is a former navy seal, who has a lot of service, and returned after 9/11. he served in afghanistan and iraq. he's recognized as a subject

matter expert, otherwise known as s and e in military speak. and in asymmetric warfare, and knowledgeable about counterinsurgency, kidnapping, and hostage rescue, and managed interagency or donated -- coordination for more than 300 instances, and played a major role in every kidnapping incidents in iraq from 2004-2006. he has a lot of stories. kate is an active lieutenant general in the marine corps. by the way, we are heavy on the navy. we have three marines, and dan is a former navy that. -- guy. kate is still in service, at least for a little bit longer. most recently as the commander of recruiting battalion in paris island, which is where the only place where women are trained to be marines. that was her last big command. she serves also in a bunch of different roles over the years. most notably, as a recruiter in various forms. i think we can really yield great answers about thinking about how this integration thing happens, not only from the standpoint of training women, but also recruiting them. to her right is elliott ackerman, a former marine infantry and specialty operations officer, and has become a novelist.

he is the author of a critically acclaimed novel, and in january, published a new one. he is here with us, but based istanbul. he has covered the syrian civil war. his work, both fiction and essays have appeared in the new yorker, the atlantic, the new republic and the new york times. he got out of uniform in 2009. he served in a number of tours of duty in the middle east and southwest asia, served as an advisor to the afghan commandos, one of the strongest fighting forces in afghanistan. he also served in iraq, where he led a rifle platoon in 2004 and the battle of falluja, where he earned a silver star and a

number of other combat awards. he has been in my own paper, the wall street journal. eden is a former enlisted marine sergeant. in 2003, she served as a data communication specialist. she deployed for eight months between 2005 and 2006. she served during the height of a lot of attention -- a lot of tensions, a very dangerous time. she also served as a photographer for her battalion. she is now a frequent contributor and freelance writer to various publications like the new york times, breitbart, and others. what we had here is a little bit of a group here.

these two are generally having concerns about the policy that has been decided upon, and these two are generally in favor of the integration of women in combat. the title of this event tonight is a little bit racy, but the idea is to kind of bring out ideas about what the nation and what the military needs to think about as we integrate women in these combat roles. i think one of the -- there's a lot of different issues to think about. how it is done, how it is done to be successful, how it is done to improve combat effectiveness, or if it is done in a way that

is limiting, effectiveness, i think all of these various questions are ones that people have, whether they are on one side of the issue or not. i'm going to stop talking. i just want to ask everyone to give a quick, for a five minute intro to where they said, how they think about the issue, who they are, and then we have a couple of questions. and then we open it up to the audience. do you want to start? >> sure. i view this as even before the decision was made, i wrote a little bit about it, is that it seems very likely the decision would be made. all of my observations and conversations with people i knew close to the decision, to include officers who would be interest rate -- infantry officers, where the marine corps

trains them, and was used as a test pad for women. the attitude and the conversation was very much framed as, we need to launch these multi-year studies to determine whether or not a woman's body is even capable of the incredible rigor in combat. to me, that really seemed like a smokescreen, because that was not the issue. the issue is a cultural issue. when i served in the infantry, i certainly had marines who were incredibly fit, but i also had marines in combat who were not fit. one of my collateral dooley's

desk duties as a second lieutenant, was i was the body composition officer. that meant 10% of the marines outside the height and weight standards would come to me, i would grab a tape measure around them, and tell them they would need to lose weight. they were outside of standards, and they continued to serve, and they did fine. i think sometimes to the outsider, there is a view that all marines are sort of marines, or soldiers, are these monolithic demigods who go to training and come out as superman. but that's not the case, they are regular people. so the argument that this is a physical issue, and that we as an organization needed to spend energy doing studies considering hip bone densities of women, and if we size -- sought a 10% higher rate of since wins, that that would absolve them of combat, frankly that seemed disingenuous. i thought the issue was a cultural one. in preparation for the possibility of this decision, that the leadership of the organization would be doing the

organization a greater service by saying, we need to look at how we would reengineer what is, specific to the infantry, a hyper masculine culture, and one that works and promotes ideas of brotherhood and camaraderie through a very masculine sentiment. and that inspires men to do incredibly brave things to save one another on the battlefield. but that was not a conversation. in the lead up to this, i felt like that was concerning, because it sets up the core as an organization to fail. i think all of us regardless of position don't want this to happen. now, we are at a moment where the decision has been made, and to me it seems to be a appropriate conversation, to say, how can we implement this most effectively that the organization is stronger? in order for the organization to implement this effectively and be strong, and change culturally as it needs to, those conversations will need to be had, and they will need to be had under the leadership of the marine corps, in my case. i think we are at a moment of truth, were at the most senior levels, the four-star level, there needs to be very clear guidance given.

disappointingly thus far, what i have seen is there has been a perception of a quiet campaign that we are not happy with this, and we will proceed grudgingly. having spent a lot of time down in infantry platoons, with 19 and 20-year-old privates and corporal's, they hear the message. i would call myself sort of a concerned alumni of the organization, that would like to see it in the next 15-28 years -- 20 years doing it in a stellar manner, with no incidents that serve to blast them. -- that serve as a black mark. there have been incidents like that. but i'm looking forward to the conversation. mr. lubold: for the sake of diversity, why don't we go down to the other side. i don't want to make too much of

this point-counterpoint thing. >> sure. in addition to the intro, part of why i have some credibility, not just as an enlisted marine, are the only enlisted person on the panel, i was also secondary duty that i had at camp falluja was that i was pulled for entry checkpoint duty for explosives. that was tumbling in and out of camp falluja with marine corps infantry, being on the street on the outskirts of five different checkpoints, coming into falluja. i'm really glad that the new york bar association is putting this on. they are doing something here that the administration and congress have failed to do, which is to hold open debate and discussion. the reason the administration has suppressed debate on this is

because the case for integrating women has been so weak. and anytime what elliott would call is a smokescreen is empirical evidence, that women suffer -- not just average women, but active-duty women average 2-10 times the injuries men do in the military. that is a liability, not an asset, when you have that additional risk. these are very fit women. the argument for women in combat depends on ignoring that. it depends on a false claim that women are interchangeable with military men and infantrymen, which depends on ignoring decades worth of research, sports medicine, military medicine, military experience.

the marine corps' nine-month integrations that he is only the latest in a series that have been done over time, and all finding the same conclusion, because we are talking about anatomy. no matter how culture changes, or societal norms change, you can't change human anatomy. these are differences that cannot be ignored. it ignores the problems that coed combat units already face with rates of pregnancy, sexual assault, unit cohesion. these are things that cannot be ignored and are being ignored. and ashton carter, and the secretary of the navy, said i had a difference of opinion. they are to $36 million study. the other big thing that the advocacy for women in combat depends on, is a swallowing whole. the big lie that this is an equal opportunity for women.

with these rates of injury, before they are even on men's standards or infantry standards, that is unequaled for women. that does not do women any favors. nobody is doubting that women serve honorably. we can serve in 98% of the jobs and be successful. but there is a difference between at deploying to the combat unit, which the general public is detached from. the difference between deploying, working in a combat zone, doing a dangerous job such as what i did, and being on the direct around combat missions that are kill missions, going door-to-door, cave to cave, often killing at point-blank range, hand to hand. women are at a disadvantage against them men who want to kill them.

another part of my background is many years of martial arts he for the marine corps, -- before the marine corps and during. i have trained with a lot of men. it always made me better against other women, but with men who really want to kill you, and this happens often. technology and modernity have not mitigated the need for direct combat. that hand-to-hand fighting -- if you talk to anybody who has a lot of deployment experience and erect close combat experience -- direct close combat experience, a lot of the times, they are smashing heads. when the gun jams, linda ammo runs out. this is not mitigated by technological advances. these are a lot of the points that i feel are being ignored by

the administration, and that are incredibly important that we bring these forward. the empirical data on women's injuries, even fit women -- i mean, twice the injuries is a baseline. it is 10 times the stress fractures, six times the acl tears and hip injuries, because a woman's gait tends to be smaller. they have to exert more effort when doing long marches under load. that is empirical data. the fact that it is being ignored in favor of just pushing this through and saying it is equal opportunity, when in fact it is not, i think it is a disservice. in terms of implementing, there is no successful way to implement a flawed plan. i will leave it at that. >> so because i am still with

active duty, i need to start with a disclaimer that my views are my own and not necessarily the marine corps. i want to start by saying i echo what elliott said about the culture. this is specific to the marine corps. we have cultural issues. it is a wonderful institution. i think whether you are a male or female marine, everyone serves with pride, and we are tied to the lineage. but all this realize every organization needs to succeed. the marine corps has trouble, whether it has been about desegregation for african-americans, when it was asked -- don't ask don't tell, and now it is women in combat. i want to point out the fact that a lot of the data is unfortunately looking to the past.

one of the things the marine corps services don't always do well is take cases of success, where things are going well, and replicating the things that are working within those units to mitigate risk. having two tours on recruiting duty and on the island where we recruit female marines, i experienced this first hand. what i thought recruiting was that the women were held to a lower standard when it came to the initial physical fitness requirements. they were not always required the way to male applicants were, and they were not pushed to the full exertion rates the way male applicants were. they were not relied on to fulfill leadership positions after recruiting levels the way males were, and they were not required to make significant gains in their physical fitness level before going to recruit training the way the males were.

so having seen that on recruiting, and made changes twice in my two tours, as a commander and executive officer, to mitigate those risks, and change how we recruited and trained women to go to boot camp, what i found was that there are success stories that can easily be replicated, and can easily mitigate a lot of the concerns you have discussed. but we have not evolved the point we need to in the military.

popular, because of our culture, and they were successful throughout a lot of the training they participated in. but the fact that they were coming out of parrish island, where we were holding women to a lower standard, the fact that they were expected to do less on the island, mainly because of segregated training, the fact that these women were recruited and not held to the same standards for preparations as male counterparts, even before going to recruit training, these were the women who graduated and could do the bear minimum past the mail standards to participate in the study. but they were not the women who could have excelled in the study, had we had higher standards from the beginning. what i would say is as we are talking about this, it is what do we want to do, and how do we want to do it in order to make sure that the institutions are successful in the nation's security is guaranteed. we are not going to do that if

we keep looking backwards, and rely on studies that involve women who were always held to lower standards from the beginning. that is where i want to leave that. mr. lubold: thank you so much. >> pleasure being here. it will be an interesting back-and-forth. i speak as someone with 20 odd years in special operations. i spent four years after 9/11 between iraq and afghanistan. i have been in every environment you can imagine, and i have served alongside women in iraq and afghanistan and elsewhere in a variety of roles. i firsthand know the value and experience they bring to the table across many venues. they are on convoy security, one of the most dangerous jobs, driving between bases in combat outposts. my comments and viewpoints are from a very different perspective. i listened to the comments coming from elliott, about changing the culture, especially the marine corps, and i have read some of the writings on the

topic. i'm looking at it from, we are talking about holding people to standards. the reality is, of all the services and branches, it was the marine corps alone that said, with the air force and navy, they don't want to deal with it. the marine corps said, if you want to hold women to the standard, and every one of them, although leadership, secretary carter, the west point colonel, who filed a lawsuit against women in combat, they all said the same thing. we want women to be given a chance to fight and die for their country just like young men. that sounds good in theory, that

we held them to the same standard. the marine corps did a number of things. they started off with the bare-bones minimum requirement for males is three bullets, maximum is tiny. every marine is worth his salt. if you are not a 300 marine corps officer, you are not going to promote. three is the minimum number of pullups. they put it out there, gave the women a year, they said the minimum will be three. they said a year later, if they can hold to the standard, more than 50% of every female recruit would have been drummed out because they could not do the there minimum. it is a $36 million study. they said, let's put a marine corps company of all-male traditional company, versus the

current -- versus an integrated one. not 50-50, but maybe 10% women, competing against 134 combat tasks, basic infantry tasks. what were the results? giambi injuries that were overwhelming, in every -- beyond the injuries that were overwhelming, in every instance of getting over walls, shooting accuracy, evacuating wounded members of the battlefield, guess who performed better overwhelmingly? 68% the all-male company outperformed, in all but one category. i'm really sorry, but these facts are really uncomfortable things. there are very uncomfortable. without even getting into the unit cohesion. i am telling you, as a guy who went through training, and some marines might dispute that -- it is arguably the hardest training in the world.

i trained with my counterparts all over the world. me and says these are sas guys aired you name it. we went through the same training. go back to world war ii. it is a standard. a 30% combat into an integrated unit. in some high wall street will

now go to community college and .xempt 30% business well, ifairman says the winning does not does it wisest standard? >> the standards will be changed. it will cost major

we are not talking about this office implementation. >> thank you. something i do thought we would do, i want to get a feel for who thought about this issue and who is not. a quick race fans. rather position one way or another. ok. and it was very concerned about .he politics

a navy heavy this makes sensevery because of different reason or not as response. it was a service that had objected to the policy decisions the bottomrruled line is he said this has to be effectiveness the point was it was making this

improve theorder to effectiveness of the fight horse , not talking and let's talk about this. about,study we talked anything i say about here. please tell me. credited prior to this. line ultimately the bottom . marines based on .he study

women as combat effective that are not. think this is an amazing opportunity. nothing anyone will lower .tandards to say be the first one and upping the standards and talking about .redibility you guys were .hooting each other

but theot one instance of andone was feature the marines who i really cannot.te but i .hey don't have today you can say either you make this or not. i was never hot and bothered

about this issue. book party for state department issue. i been in two and a colleague of and this will be our incubator. it sort of happened. how is it going? among and submit officers he was like yeah, you know, it's going all right, none of the women rains have made it through. i said no one has come close question -- women marines have made it through. i said no one has come close? he said it's different from when

we went through. i said how? when i went through in early 2004, the iraq war was flaring up and it had gone from being a hazing course to the sense that hey, these young men are going to war.

we have to make sure they are ready. it was much more of a technical course. it's not like that anymore. we used to do hikes. everything was graded as a platoon event. either your platoon past or your platoon failed. that has changed. i thought that was probably a good thing because there were guys who made it through that course who should have never made it through and probably were not ready for combat. but still, none of the women made it through? he said you can't tell me that a woman can never call -- haul supplies away 40 or 50 pounds -- that way 40 or 50 pounds. but what happens when it happens? what happens when a woman who was ranked in the crossfit games shows up and says she wants to make it and she does? he says it's never going to happen. now look, i am a proud marine, but i am a human being first, and to me, that is wrong. it's unfair and wrong. the standards didn't slip. it's not as if we are in a wartime incubator. it's dishonest. we are an integrated squad. what does that look like? a squad needs a squad leader. that means a soldier who's at least six years in the infantry, a good one. so you are going to put women in who are not trained.

if you sprinkle women in who are not trained infantrymen, they are not going to perform at the same level. so, if you look at this, and again, i find it ironic. i am not some big champion of women's rights. my wife says i'm a real sister on this issue. i laugh because i don't feel like i am. but this just doesn't feel right to me. at the end of the day, if you haven't gone through a transparent process, it's going to come out in the wash. that has always been my concern. i will leave it there. i sure you will have plenty to rebut. >> do you want to just talk about and explained to folks what combat effectiveness is and one of the kind of standout issues of the marine corps study was, you know, the ability of women to take a body off the battlefield if need be, which is what happens in war, sometimes. there were others, but that was the one that always got to me, that women would not be as effective in these units.

want to then come back to you and ask a little bit about -- i want to then come back to you and ask a little bit about some people thought the study was a fraud or the approach was a fraud. you want to talk about what that means and why it's a big deal. >> first of all, the females were top-performing females. they had made the men's minimum

pft standards, the physical fitness test. they had completed the enlisted infantry training, and they weren't fresh recruits. they were lance corporal's, corporals. the corporal, typically, means your two years in. and they were competing against average men. they were not competing against top performers. and yet and still on 134 combat tasks, their performance was significantly lower, significantly weaker, as a fatigued faster. this is not a smokes green -- smokescreen. women have smaller lung capacity, less bone density. if it were just a matter of training, professional sports and the olympics would've been integrated long ago. they are not men. they have a different physiology. adding excess training actually diminishes their estrogen, which in turn reduces their bone density, and that causes greater rates of injury. so you can't just say well, if we reevaluate the standards, and by the way, if women could make men's standards so easily, they wouldn't need to be reevaluated. but even if there are some women

who can make it, and by the way, a crossfit female competing for her utmost -- at her utmost is no competition for a male crossfit performer competing at his utmost. >> but isn't it true that a female crossfitter could potentially compete against -- maybe not the top male crossfitter -- >> that's what i was about to

>> but isn't it true that a female crossfitter could potentially compete against -- maybe not the top male crossfitter -- >> that's what i was about to say. even if you have a couple of women who can make the standards -- we have female rangers -- even if you can do that, they are rare. you do not make sweeping policy based on a couple of exceptional women. second, it does nothing to solve the problems of sexual relationships that are always a problem. >> this is a cultural issue. >> i would like to make a comment. >> sex is not a cultural issue. you put men and women together and they are going to have sex. >> it's a leadership issue. >> no it's not. it's a human nature issue and they haven't been able to solve it for decades, up until this point. >> it's going to be a small number, but the top-performing crossfit woman is going to be in

better shape than the fatty i was dealing with, and i would rather have her in my platoon van that guy. so if the issue is too few women, then it is a cultural issue. >> then you phase that guy out. you get the washouts out. and we do need better ways to get the washouts out. one of the things the marine corps study found was we see areas where we need to tighten standards for men as well. there is a lot to be gleaned from this marine corps study. to say that because some men wash out or are unfit, that means that women are automatically and are changeable with them is false. >> the marine corps did not say we should not integrate women because our culture doesn't accept women. they said we cannot integrate women because of these physical issues, and to me, that's disingenuous.

>> i would like to talk about why it's rare for women to meet those standards. let's go back to recruiting and training. it's rare for women to meet the standards because for decades we have allowed women to underperform at recruit training. we have created an environment in the marine corps where we are the only unit that only trains women in the entire department of defense. women are held to lower standards while in the delayed entry program. they are not required to push themselves. they are held to lower standards, and that sets the

standard for how males perceive them. their male counterparts automatically think training is going to be easier for them because it has to until that point. then they get to parris island and step on the yellow footprint, which is the first ceremonial duty of every recruit, to stand in those footprints and be welcomed by a drill instructor, and the females are pushed to the back of the formation and they stand in formation of until the ceremony is complete, and then they are pushed to a battalion that is separate from the males in geography, time, and space. so the males already have a negative perception about their female counterparts. and i am talking about averages. i am not talking about the success rates i mentioned when i started speaking. but the bottom line is that the perception of the training for women is that it's easier. and that it has been easier. there is no physiological reason women should not be able to shoot. and i know. i was a terrible shot until the

last year. but for decades, women achieved an initial qualification rate at the rifle range between 68%-70 2%. -- 72%. what does that mean? every marine is a rifle man. one third of each class was being dropped to remedial training or discharged because they could not qualify on the range. was that because a physiology? no. because mentally they cracked under pressure? no. it's because there was a language acceptance and perception on the range that women could not shoot. last year, women shot just under 92%. do you know how that happened? we didn't get bigger recruits. we didn't give them a next row week to prepare -- an extra week to prepare. we didn't give them extra training. we held them to a higher standard. the only thing we did was change the expectation that just because they were women they

couldn't shoot. and they rose to the occasion. and that wasn't the only area where we saw women rise to the occasion in one year. we saw women rise to the occasion in terms of physical fitness, in terms of filling leadership responsibilities within their platoon, because the drill instructors expected it and demand it. but i am telling you, up until that point women were expected to do less, and not because we had a system of training that whisked the women away after they had not been held accountable to reaching high standards, and then it's a mystery?

how do we get female marines? i don't know. they are in their own compounds, doing their own things, and it's easier. >> if you do a psychological survey of every soldier, marine, and you look at their perspective and attitude toward women, and they are taught to respect women from day one, if they did a psychological profile and weeded out every officer who has a negative attitude about a woman's capability [inaudible] >> but then, by your logic, in 1950, we would have applied the same test toward african-americans because in 1950, most marines were white, male, from the south, and didn't like african-americans. the logic doesn't work, dan. that logic is saying that because men don't like women, women should be allowed in. [indiscernible] look at the straight, empirical data. let's go to your crossfit example. professional athletes. women that are performing and start training in their teens or

preteens, they go on to become professional athletes. some join the military, but they are still not getting the numbers. i got a letter saying i was going to ranger school. i went home to san diego. they said you can't recycle. it's an army course. don't embarrass us. the women that did go through the marine corps, the rangers, they identified 140 women, willed it down to 22, the women that did graduate were given six months to prepare for the training, and you are going to change policy based on three graduating? >> yes.

>> women aren't showing up ready to integrate. [indiscernible] >> that is exactly what the study did, and they showed much weaker performance. >> one of the time. this is great conversation, but one at a time. >> the recourse study show -- and kate wants to say this is in the past, yes, the results were released this past fall. that's like yesterday, not some age-old thing. this marine corps study was like can you do it or can you not do it question mark these are typical combat tasks. can you do it -- or not do it? these are typical combat tasks. can you do it or not do it? it doesn't matter if you can make standards. here is a study of a battalion in 2010 that was deployed to iraq, army brigade. women were sent home for non-battle, noncombat reasons three to four times the rate of men, and 74% of the time it was due to pregnancy. that's catastrophic. on average, 12% of women in the military are pregnant at any given time. let's stop hyaline -- this is regardless of standards. this -- let's not pile on. there is a whole other set of issues regardless of standards. >> i had a marine friend who said he had women come into his unit in afghanistan and the unit

. pathsare typical combat and the answer was clear and not only that but the woman were distracting and vice versa. there is no mitigating. -- a study ofill a battalion in 2010 that was deployed to iraq. they found women were sent home for nonbattle, non-combat reasons -- three to four times the right of men and 75% was due to parents a. pylon -- regardless of -- it does not change

what i said. >> the unit was not trained or prepared for -- what is the name engagement ande they help with -- >> they help. this problems and other things but he came to realize was there was this one and leadership issues -- and not, all my god women. >> a human nature issue. ranksd women -- all ages,

-- part of the problem is really just now being addressed in the past several years that you know leadership has been just as guilty, not just in the listed leadership has been involved not just appropriate reaction to. this is a human nature issue. you are talking about putting women with the most apple males. need to kill the enemy that we are fighting which methis when they are on wildly are fighting them. this is no joke. we are piling on issues that we cannot into the military.

we tolerate this stuff, expensive and destructive. it is not enough that we tolerate it is a whole or the military as a whole but to but these added burdens and distractions and destructive and expensive problems on the combat unit is just idiotic. >> how would you address these if you were in an integrated unit? >> you have to look at it logically. i would definitely concede, if you wanted to create the most effective, lethal, headley fighting force in the world, you would probably go to some town in appalachia, find the toughest 30 guys in the town who have spent their lives hiking the mountains, and send them over.

but guess what? our military also represents who we are as a nation, fundamentally. it does, in summer spec. i think the idea of saying this is the standard, and if you can meet the standard, you are allowed in. the idea that we cannot allow women into units because you have senior officers the hazing inappropriately, sexually assaulting women, i don't know what to say to that. it's not logically. >> it's everybody in all ranks. >> women get pregnant. by that logic, at elite law firms, we should have no women because they get pregnant and that will hurt the firm.

>> it would be catastrophic. if you are on a mission and you have to pull out -- >> i think catastrophic -- >> what about if a woman gets assaulted? its $30,000 to then reassign her somewhere else. you have to pull out the guy to do the legal side. >> if i could. what we're saying is we have such a low threshold for how human beings treat each other,

>> i would like to talk about why it's rare for women to meet those standards. let's go back to recruiting and training. the number one concern is intimate relationships. that's the number one concern that men have. the number one conserve -- concern that women have is targeting women as pows. which is trainable. you are saying we should not be what we will treat women. the bottom line is we will have a military to a higher standard and any system with how we have order and discipline and i can see some of having a heart attack.

>> who is the best -- don't worry. >> do you want to ask the question? >> my question is with regards to the arguments about the dangers of woman outside of andiological inadequacies cohesion of the union but with the recent changes to our nation and gender identity, gender roles how would that would be any different than the military is going to have to address the challenges of having integration of women into the military is. what will the military do if

there is a gentleman who wants to go into a combat unit who'd has a different gender role and identity? >> it posesstion the same problems it is now rendered taken away the neutrality that once existed with being separated. tellad do not ask to not and -- you may be better to answer this but now even posing -- yet taken away the neutrality what that was there because now and actually same-sex assault is , now on the rise in the military. now people can serve openly and

identify as whatever they want. it gets all kinds of -- >> i'm trying to get away from the marine corps topic. but to elliott's point, the appalachian guys you're describing, that's what an oda is, special forces guys in particular. they're all southern boys. best guy on your platoon -- >> that's not true. in the seventh group, they're all latino. sorry. that's not true. i mean, they're actually a pretty diverse crowd. i worked with them a lot. >> all that is white noise. all this other stuff is white .noise. when you're in a seal platoon -- i was a platoon commander in the 1990's. you know what we had to worry about besides going to war? women. when you go -- i was appointed to the middle east. my entire career has been nowhere other than the middle east. they don't have alcohol,

7-elevens. when you go overseas, you've got nothing that focuses on the mission, which is killing the enemy. that's what we do. that's our only focus. all this other stuff is white noise. it's a distraction, complication. it makes guys go, listen, i'm here to focus on the mission, which is keep this country safe. and the don't ask, don't tell, guys are like, don't bring your personal stuff to the team room. if you've got stuff on the weekends going on and we need to help you, we'll take care of you. but focus on why you're in the team room. period. period. >> i agree. and in my bio, i did two years of paramilitary. i worked with jessica. all the guys called her "slay jay." we were all professional enough, and i think you'd agree, most

people are professional enough that when you go on a six-month deployment, and there's a woman sitting next to you, you can keep your pants on. [applause] >> there are women within special operations. and you and i probably can share more stories together, not here because it's not on topic. but i agree with you 100%. you keep things professional and there aren't those issues. it is about leadership and it's about recognition. and there are absolutely values to having a woman in certain environments, especially other parts of the world. but now we're announcing to the world that now we have women going through. we're taking away an arrow out of the quiver of how we operate overseas. what we're all arguing for is lower standards. that's what the leadership wants. >> hang on. let me just say -- >> all the studies have come out. they've all said you need as a unit, you need to justify why -- >> absolutely false!

>> no. it's absolutely true. absolutely true. reevaluating the standard. he said we need to reevaluate the standards. and the standards have consistently been lowered over decades. you know, and what they do is they take out certain tests where women don't excel, so that it matches, or they make the two men -- used to be a two-man litter carry. now it's a four-man litter carry, because they found that when women were integrated into the academies and stuff, you know, and they would test the men but they found that two women couldn't carry the litter up the ship ladder. but two men could. but in order to accommodate and get the gender diversity metrics -- what they care about is gender diversity metrics. they'll mouth the words of combat readiness and say this will improve it, but what they care about are gender diversity metrics. >> i think it's ironic when we

talk about lowering standards when the standards are already low, the point being is that everything else is the same that is required. >> yet women have underperformed. --women entering the life the wnba versus the mba. they are being paid because they

train a whole life to do things the average person cannot do. but at the end of the day, if you took the top number one wnba team that won last year's championship and you put it against the nba team that lost or maybe a division 3 program, who is going to win that game? we're trying to say we don't hold the same standard in professional sports. now we want to hold it to the same standard or make things different because the women aren't given the right to be held to a higher standard? >> hang on. >> women are held to a separate standard because it's a recognition of physiological differences -- >> no. >> and that their injuries are so much greater even on their lower standards. >> their injuries are greater

because they're not held to a higher standard for physical performance. i read the same study! >> okay. okay. >> it's a lower standard? >> please. i feel like his voice is going to be loud enough for all. but we're not arguing here. okay? we're just having a discussion. >> you indicated that -- so when we recruit female marines, they come from some island, like amazon island, or are they just simply from the standard population? >> i think you know the answer. >> you're right. i do know the answer. now, mr. ackerman, you indicated that it's just a matter of people being dishonest. if anything, i think you're being dishonest. these individuals that are making these efforts to test the marines are not the smartest men, your fellow officers. okay? fellow officers. i'm a former marine corps officer myself. they're not dishonest. i've already done the count. half of this room i think is women. i think the other half is men. i want you to take a look at who you're sitting next to. i want to put all the men on this side. i'm going to put owl the women on that side. if i drop the gauntlet and said, now, fight to the death, who is walking out of this room?

>> what's your real question? i need a question. i need a question. i need a question. >> my question is this. you know, you know that, as a recruiter and as a battalion officer, you know that these standards -- you said you were not a good shot until last year. what stopped you from being a good shot? >> i was convinced that i wasn't a good shot. when i told myself that i was going to hold my recruits to a higher standard, i said it had to start with me. so i forced myself to go to the pistol range for a month before i went to qualify so i could become more confident with my weapon. it worked. for the first time, i shot exert. so it can be done. >> how many years in service? >> 20. >> and it took you that long, at the basic school -- and you know, because we went through the basic school together. we all qualified right then and there and there was nobody telling you at that time that you're not -- >> clearly you're not familiar with language expectancy. you can roll your eyes.

the point is, if women are told women can't shoot -- >> i was never told that, through my entire four years. >> you may not have been told that. but the point is, if you look at the decades of shooting results, it's very clear that that was the case. and when we change that dynamic, we saw the results. period. >> just because somebody wears the marine corps uniform does not mean they cannot be intellectually dishonest. i'm saying this study was intellectually dishonest. i am saying this study was intellectually dishonest. uhhh.. quick one. with the microphone please.

>> the wars we fight today, they're pretty much -- how do you expect to locate -- [inaudible] >> it's a false premise. a completely false premise. first of all, it's actually -- first of all, if we were to represent the society as a whole, then we need to accept the disabled, the blind, the old, all of these things. if we're really representing society, okay? discrimination, one of the definitions of discrimination is to decipher and to be able to tell between something has good value and something that has negative value. okay? the marine corps must demonstrate based on -- discriminate based on ability. it's not a 50% pool. >> you've never deployed, sir. unites deployed overseas, it's not all -- it's not just all men deemploying. you deploy with a package of

humans. and you'd be amazed at how many women -- >> you do not need to dumb down for this audience, because we have quite a few veterans in here. joe is one of them. >> 50%? maybe you weren't in afghanistan or where i was the last decade, how much of a role being played by women. let me give you an example. i landed at a combat outpost, a small footprint of a company of soldiers. i was all over afghanistan for a year. i landed on a cop and saw a woman walking across. i looked to the guys, is she stuck? who is that girl? they said, that's susie, she's one of the officers. my first question wasn't, who is she having sex with?

who is she messing with? no. my question is, is she good at her job? and the guys i was talking to -- >> the question was, is she good at her job? he's talking about the recruitment pool, though, dan. >> at her job. >> i'm talking about -- [inaudible] >> i don't speak that, no. >> if you did, could you? no. >> women are already being utilized in those capacities. >> they were able to get -- >> wait a minute. >> you don't need to repeal the combat exemption to utilize women the way they're already being utilized, for just that kind of work. >> if you or i are making any arguments that women don't belong, did i state that women don't belong? >> how do you locate, through the enemy -- >> we're already doing that. special operations. >> they have access. >> okay. too many voices. i'm going to go to this

gentleman right here. >> thank you to everybody. this is a fascinating issue. all around, i think the points are being expressed very well. i think one of the spral points that -- central points that came out was whether or not this is going to result in a higher or lower standard. we heard, oh, that's true, oh, that's false. i think the corollary is whether, if there's a lowering of the standards, whether that's because of physical reasons or cultural reasons, my question is we're not the first society to be confronting this question. admittedly, united states has its own cultural history that may be playing a role here. but if we extract the cultural element, the societal element, what does the panel think about other countries, israel, denmark -- >> israel does not put women in direct combat roles. they tried it in 1988 and it was an unmitigated disaster, so they never did it again, because the injuries were too high for the women. they found the arab enemy became

much more ferocious knowing it was fighting the enemy. there's a myth that radical islamist are loathe to fight women because they won't get their 72 virgins. i'm sure if i was interested in 72 virgins, i would fight more fiercely. but they fought much more fiercely knowing that there were women on the opening side -- opposing side, because it's so humiliating to lose to women in battle. any of the other nations, canada lowered their standards. they have a tiny amount of women who have gone with the infantry. and they have sheltered them. the women complain about it. they keep them on the base. they don't utilize them. any other nations, they have like -- in france, the women have like zero, next to zero interest in being there. and no other nation -- look, we

have no military need to repeal women's combat exemption. we're already utilizing females. we can absolutely utilize the amazon females we have. we want lots of really strong females in our military. they are serving, you know, with honor and distinction. we don't have to repeal -- or we didn't have to repeal the combat exemption to utilize those females. they're already there, already doing it, already recognized for their actions. other countries have no compability to us. we're huge. israel is tiny. why don't we take their example? women serve in a couple of light battalions. they only do guard duty on borders that are their allies. and women only -- everybody has to enlist. but women have many exemptions. they only have to -- they serve

less than two years. men have to serve a mandatory three. but they are serving but they're not serving the combat. >> got it. you guys have a sense of foreign nations now. >> so i just had a really interesting conversation with a gentleman from norway who told me they don't have this issue in norway. they don't have a stigma about women serving with men. they don't have issues with women being in particular roles and it all goes back to society. so this is a cultural issue, just like elliott said. and until we look at this as a military cultural issue and we seek solutions on how we're going to change the culture and expand the culture to make it more conducive to everyone's success, we will continue to have this debate for decades. >> quick question -- >> i was stationed in the north.

i was embedded with the norwegians. the norwegian force, they did not allow forces to go on combat operations. i was in norwegian -- the koran issue popped up. and lo and behold, the prt, whose sole purpose was to rebuild schools, dig wells and build churches. they couldn't go on combat operations. they said, death to america! let's go attack the norwegians! and the base came under attack. they freaked out. at one point, the battalion commander, his j2 and j3, were both home on leave at the same time, because of the generous leave policy of like three weeks every two months at war. i'm not kidding.

so the guy turned to me, because we were on the advisory team, he said, we need help. can you give us advice? and what the norwegians planned to do was take a statement, all these apologetic statements, all these statements, with the typical, blah blah blah, and they were going to translate that to the radios, to the locals, some of which were coming from hillary clinton, which you're in the afghan culture, not probably a good idea. well, when the base got attacked, a bunch of vehicles were destroyed. they were burned. turned out all the vehicles that were destroyed were the cars from the local interpreters and others on the base. these were afghan locals whose cars were destroyed. when we asked them, what was in your car? they said, oh, my computer, my mac book computer. they were thinking we were going to give them a new computer. they also said my koran was burned. what we ended up doing was countermessaging, basically said we recommended -- listen, you protest the burning of korans. we were able to use their religion against them. whatever you want to call it. i've been next to the norwegians and god bless them all. they don't have an inkling of our threat overseas. we're not in the -- >> it sounds like an attack on norwegians -- hang on. what i want to ask is this question. which is a legitimate question, raised by marine leadership in particular. is there a risk -- and i'll ask you -- is there a risk of taking those hard-charging women who are more likely to meet these standards and break down, because of their physiological whatever limitations there are? that's a legitimate question. >> it is.

he can answer. >> i think that this whole couching of that is like, you know, that it's so unfair to these women, right? if they would volunteer to go into the service and find out that the service breaks down their bodies, you know, like that's horrible.

oh, my god. we didn't realize being marines was hard on the body. you're a marine. you're a seal. you're getting shot at. like you are handing your body to the government as a man. i mean, i'm sure all of us who serve -- i'm sure dan has a broken body. i have a bit of a broken body too. i think that's just sort of an odd argument that it's unfair to women because it's hard on their bodies. it's hard on male bodies if you don't see combat. if you do see combat, you're getting shot at. that's the nature of the beast. i kind of don't know what to do with that argument, because it's sort of like saying it's unfair to a race car driver because they might crash their car. you're signing up to be a race car driver. >> we've been talking about this combat integration study. it was a very thorough study. but it is interesting that when the study was presented to congress and to the public, there were elements that were picked out of the study to support the idea that women

shouldn't go into combat, ground combat jobs. so the interesting thing is, when you read the 900 pages of the study, as i have and as jude probably has, what you find is that that difference, the delta in breakage between men and women, over time, when physical fitness no longer becomes a deficit, the breakage rate declines and is negated. we're back to, what do we need to do to make this a success? make sure that we're treating men and women to the same requirements and the same standards when it comes to physically preparing to come into the service. >> please, ma'am, there. >> my question is -- i just wanted to step aside from the studies and look to your own personal views. regardless of where you're coming from, integration is happening. so what are your thoughts on how we should move forward in actually training?

because i think there's something to the idea that there is a physical training standard to it but also a moral ethical training standard to it. i thought what was really interesting is we talked about holding them to these high physical standards but we still have these low moral standards where people still say things like, sexual misconduct is an occupational hazard and where, you know, stuff like that i think is trainable. there are things that i don't believe are just human nature, because it's going to happen, and aside from seeing people like -- like noncontact professional sports, where you're getting paid a lot more than you would in the military, and you're actually fighting for your country. but in the context of asymmetrical warfare, and we've seen gains where isis is actually afraid of kurdish women fighters, because they're too embarrassed to be killed by them elm? >> not true. >> ultimately, this is about how to make this policy which has already been made a success. jude or dan, you can jump in. and if kate has something to say.

so i mean, it is what it is. we love to say that. the policy has been made. >> and it can be repealed administratively just like it was -- >> let's assume that the policy is going to be -- is going to continue in the same way. i mean, if you don't have a view, that's fine. but if you have a view about how it can be implemented in the best way, to address some of the issues that you guys have. what is it? >> again, i don't think there's a successful way to implement a flawed policy. what kate is saying about the injuries is false. when women are just as fit as men, they get fewer gains from extra training. and the injury rates, they don't diminish with fitness. women decline at a much faster rate. and that's -- where the physical demand in these combat units is so much greater. military women, who are already very fit and already being held to greater standards than average women, you know, they're already averaging two to ten times men's injuries. that's not a culture issue. that's a physiological issue.

that's an issue of differences in anatomy. that's why separate standards exist for men and women. so there's no -- i mean, you can make women try to achieve men's standards. but in terms of everything that kate was talking about in recruit training, there's no long-term study on the impact, the added impact and the added injuries of holding them to that much higher standard.

and a lot of women are going to not even make it through an enlistment, let alone a 20-year career. this is no equal opportunity for women. >> so i'd like to focus on the one thing, the linchpin, to making this a success. specifically to the marine corps. changing the culture has to start at the most basic foundational level, which is recruit training. it's where the most individuals who are in the marine corps come in for their training, because there are fewer officers obviously than there are enlisted marines. bottom line is that right now women are treated as "the other." men are treated as warriors. training is completely separate. women are segregated to a battalion and held to lower standards. the only way to change the perception of women being the other is by not making them the other. if they are able to compete with their male counterparts throughout the 13 weeks, if they're able to be standing on that pt field every day for pt, doing the same pt, and the men are able to see the women pushing therms to the point -- themselves to the point of failure, the men will start to believe that women are no longer the other. i'm using physical fitness because it's the most visible demonstration of what makes a marine a marine.

>> did you make the argument that the women recruits could be held to the same pt standards as men? if you want them to compete in the infantry -- >> clearly you haven't read anything about my release. i told my recruits unless they were willing to push themselves to become strong enough to compete with their male counterparts, they were always going to be the other. you've proven my point. >> i'll try to answer the question. [laughter] >> and i'm going to risk giving my friend, dan, a brain aneurysm when i do it. [laughter] >> and i mean that with love, because we're just having a debate. i don't want him to get too angry. so i actually -- i just think a way to do it which might be smart is that you don't integrate the infantry first. that the first place you integrate is -- my thinking behind that is because -- >> special operations. >> special operations forces. >> because there are going to be fewer women who can meet these standards. the standard has to be the standard.

the second it goes down, there's going to be plenty of argument, with merit, that this is a flawed plan. if the standard is the standard, there are going to be not a lot of women. i think there are going to be a few who can do it, like three who pass the ranger school. you take those women and soft them into spo units. let's talk about the culture in that community, because it's different than the culture in the infantry. the culture in the infantry is macho, masculine, put your head through a whole. this is one that puts a premium on maturity of the operators and it's one where i think you're going to have a much easier time culturally integrating women, as evidenced by the fact that women serve widely in the special operations. when i served as an infantry officer, i literally did not see a woman for the three years. our administrative roles were filled only by men, even though those were roles filled by women. my thought being if you integrate spo, you show there are women successfully working in those units, you can point to them.

it will sort of hot-wire that argument that women just aren't tough enough. that's my thought. >> i'll take the comment that a marine just admitted that seals, rangers, he just said that -- >> i was a marine. i can say that. >> let's take the ranger. i went through the training back in the day. >> think the ranger analogy. i got full benefits as a ranger. the fact is, a ranger qualified officer doesn't make you a ranger. >> no junior officer who takes 124 days to take a 60 day course, three times, they are not going to be given a shot to go to rangers.

you put 141 through the pipeline and 22 in the course. how many women have graduated from the rangers course? >> and no one passes, you never integrate. >> we do have usual numbers who are willing to volunteer for any of this. >> i also just wanted to mention an answer to the young ladies question, that there already is -- marines in the military already go through lots and lots of sexual harassment training. wazoo.efings up the

>> let me get elaine. >> i just want to comment on some of the things already said. >> no speeches. >> he started out kind of downgrading the marine study. then, you got into the discussion and said the women were not as prepared for the ground combat forces. that really isn't true. the hypothesis of that study was very simple, that women with gender-neutral standards go again, which they did, they had extra training going in, and they went up against average man -- the hypothesis was that the gender-mix would perform equally as well as the men. all of the empirical evidence

went to the contrary. point, are proving dan's because when the empirical evidence comes in and you don't like it, you immediately question the study. >> what is your question, because i'm going to disagree with you? the average man can do 12-15 pull-ups. the women who graduated and went to this experiment were averaging 3-5. right there, there is a difference. >> i stand on what i said. you two are proving the point that dan makes. you don't like to use the bone structure study. the marines had to do it this way, they had no choice. the only flaw with these exercises was that it didn't come up with the conclusion you want it. my question to you is -- i know because i studied and researched this, there is not a single study that proves what you are trying to imply. with a little preparation, we

can do just as well as men, there are none. >> oh my god. that's not true. >> hang on, no speeches. >> when they started talking about all the other complications, you can't happen that way. you have to look at the big picture. my question is -- how does it benefit the marine corps or the military to introduce the physical issues, the sexual issues, the cultural issues? >> that is a good question. that is a good question. that is a good question. what are we really trying to achieve here and how will the military be better in 10 years if this goes through? >> can i make my point. i will be brief. i think we have fundamentally different values at a baseline level. i believe -- i don't think that

suddenly you're going to have happy infantry battalion is going to be women and half will be men. -- i don't think that all of a have 50/50.ill the infantry will men.men and half will be just because most women cannot meet these standards doesn't mean that none should be able to try. i'm sure you're very accomplished, but there are fewer women serving as ceos then there are as men. >> this is not an office job. >> it reflects our values as a society. that is the answer. you're being very dramatic.

>> it is a fair question, how is this going to improve over 10 years? >> how will that improve the military? can one of you guys answer that? >> this argument -- and this is what i think is intellectually dishonest, that combat effectiveness is this monolithic thing. if you wanted maximum combat effectiveness, you would have the white boys from appalachia. sir, would you stop heckling. at a certain point, our military does represent our values. it just does. that is why we repealed don't ask don't tell. how do we become more combat effective? we have units, and the culture of those units are representing what the united states stands for. >> the bottom line is, if you look at the marine corps, we're the service leading in the number of sexual assaults. we talk about the fact that we have cultural problems. one of the ways we make units more combat effective as we prevent people from doing stupid

things, by disrespecting persons of the other sex just because they were girls, as dan would say. if we change the culture in the military and expand the quality of the pool we are drawing from, it will have an impact that is favorable or national security in terms of combat effectiveness. >> my comment is, i am trying to stay in the marine corps fight here. >> one little point before your story. what kate said assumes that the fault is all-male. there problems with the females, too. females come on to men, too.

this is a day one-sided thing. we are all human beings. just a little bit of discipline will take care of this -- it is human nature. you are fighting against hormones. you know? and don't misconstrue what i am saying here. i am talking about sex in general. i'm not saying it is human nature to sexually assault or anything. but women in these combat units are going to be at higher risk for those things with the most alpha of alpha males. no privacy, in the dirt training. often, in the furthest reaches of the globe with no privacy. and then, they are at much greater risk. there is a risk of assault, but there is also the natural what happens between men and women. >> listen, you and i, we will have more in common than we don't. my point is, not everyone -- rand did a huge study.

85% of special operations across the spectrum from air force, navy seals, rangers -- they are brought up all the topics on issues of conflict. at the end of the day, the point is bottom line. how would this improve the combat fighting lethality of what we do for a business, for a profession? for us, it would destroy the team, destroy the ethos. i can tell you straight up -- the very small element that is hunting al qaeda every night, it was less than 100 men every night for about 8 years. appalachian boys you were

talking about, they had one mission to focus on. anything to disrupt that legal capability should be a nonstarter. the military serves one purpose -- to win our wars. i am all about integration. i have worked alongside women in many forms and capacities. i see the value they bring to the table. that is not the topic. there are women doing things, and those things need to be kept to the shadows and that aired out. -- and not aired out. not washed away. it will not make the unit better. >> i owe this guy a question. i'm glad we have so many questions. please try to make it quick and we will try to get a couple responses. >> to the point about allowing women to try even though many may fail -- what i am wondering is, if you only have so many spots for so many special operations forces training regiments, like there is only so many training slots to be a navy seal, if you are putting more women through those, and the

attrition rate for women is higher, but you produce fewer seals them what you might have otherwise produced? >> question to him. >> fewer special operators to do the mission? >> i believe there is a screener to run the selection. to even go down there, you have to pass certain physical tests. that doesn't cost them a school seat. you go to your unit, i want to take this test, a sergeant and a seal will monitor you and take your scores. my current understanding, the current way it is done, you wouldn't have that issue. >> i can speak to this point blank. i have been mentoring young seals for decades now. there is a waiting list for

buds. we don't need more recruits for the training program. school where ivy am a graduate. my freshman year is when they opened up the billet. before that, anyone in your class rank could get a shot. the bottom line was, you had to do the training programs. it came out of your physical fitness test. roughly 80 guys competed. those billets, there wasn't a guy on that list didn't have a score of 20 plus. i ended up scoring, i think, third on the test. at the end of the day, the guy that interviewed you look at your collective package. where were you in the summers? were you doing the things to prepare you to become a seal? the process was so thorough that the 19 guys that got those slots, that was the most competitive billet on the planet.

now they are grooming. if she is given a slot, taken away from a guy who spent quite a few years and even if he did do the same training programs and she goes and failed out of the training program, that is another seed of that resentment. they are going to lower standards and shift the scale. theagain, does it make unit better in the long run? my answer is no. >> let me get the gentleman in the back. >> thanks for the discussion.

my question is for commander crochet. you have obviously been at the top level of combat effectiveness. you have a navy seal, went through ranger school, you have performed at the top echelon. earlier, you cited -- i think you called it a fairly evident example of the difference between the wnba in the nba. i wonder if, at one point you life you think you could have competed in the wnba? >> i was the best basketball player in my parochial school and then i got to high school. i am not a basketball fan or a player. >> i would make one brief point. >> i spent plenty of time in combat operations. what your bench press is is not hugely relevant when you were in a complex night raid or you are dealing with the security of an afghan valley that has incredibly complicated and arcane tribal issues. these things are important, but i will say -- and anyone that has been in combat here, i think, might agree with me -- they are a sliver of the pie

when you're fighting a war. >> i am the director of the american civil liberties union and its rights project. project.ghts we brought a lawsuit in november of 2012, challenging the combat exclusion ban. in january of 2013, the secretary of defense lifted that ban. our lawsuit is still pending and and we have been following this and waiting for full implementation, which without happened january 1, 2016. now we're looking at april. my question is, a lot of the fears that are being espoused in this argument are the same fears

and arguments that were made against integrating racially and integrating, allowing lgbt members to serve. what has been the effect of those integrations, and have any of those fears come to light? >> that is a good question, i think. >> the racial integration has no component whatsoever. racism is an irrational prejudice. a black man is still a man. women inition to combat is not based on irrational fear, it is based on knowledge of what the job in

combat requires, and what happens every time we test women against men's standards, which is that they don't perform as get injured more than twice as much. >> one of the arguments that was made about the lifting of don't ask, don't tell is that when you have open service, you are going to create huge unit cohesion issues. i do not know the answer to this question, but it seemed to be, viewsm sure elaine has on this, that the end of that policy left with a whimper. >> it hasn't really been studied. >> the lifting of don't ask don't tell -- >> the issue with someone being gay or lesbian, that is a personal thing. the issue for the operator is the standards. the standards are going to be changed. that is all they care about. if the guide your left or right, or the girl, can perform to the same capabilities of everyone in the unit. they are talking about gender normal. they are saying that if is too hard we need to lower it down.

that is lowering the standards, and that is the slippery slope of destroying the ethos of the greatest fighting force. >> i completely agree with you. >> i would like to go back to 1945-1950 and talk about the segregation issue. at one time in this country, it was a very common notion, and it still is in some parts of this country, that african-americans were not as intelligent as white men. to say there is no comparison is really a false statement. comparison.e is a the same arguments that are being used today about women going into ground combat and how that will impact cohesion are

the same arguments that were used in 1950, 1945, and during don't ask don't tell. during that whole repeal process. there is a comparison, and i think that if you look at the don't ask don't tell process, i would say that it has been successful and that there hasn't been a backlash that was anticipated by the leadership, because it is generational. i think every person who has served in the military has worked alongside someone who was gay. you knew it, and maybe they didn't come out, but they were still gay and you knew it. they were maybe average or really good or not good at all, but it wasn't because they were gay. it is a nonissue for the generations serving today, minus minor pockets. when we see women succeed and we hold them to a higher standard, we will see that this is a nonissue, too. >> when we went into korea, our military was very depleted, and we had to put almost everybody on the front line. why do we have women in the military in general?

>> women are excellent at certain essential fields. there are fields in which women excel especially compared to men. intelligence, communications, medicine. nobody here is arguing that women shouldn't be in the military. women have been serving for decades. they are serving in our deployments. >> special operations in many roles. the perception is that we still have unit that employment don't

-- is that we still have units that deply that don't have anya -- any women. that is completely false. it is not say that there aren't roles to be played by women. the argument is the fundamental question. i think elaine brought it up. they getting to this baseline will some how make them better perform their mission. that has not been answered. >> back here. we're almost in the 5 to 6 minute period. >> there is a saying in the marine corps that the bottom 10% takes up 90% of your time. i found that to be pretty commonly held. it basically means that the bottom 10% of any unit is just not performing at the level that you need to to get your entire unit functional and combat effective. getting rid of that bottom 10% will make the rest of that 90%

more combat effective. am i interpreting this wrong? when you look at the study that they did, which takes into account all the fitness problems, injury problems, there is a part of the study that says that the top 10% of women will match with the bottom 50%, 35% of men. seems to be that you could take those top women and knock out the nonperforming men and replace them with women who are exactly equal or potentially better than the men. i think also that the top performer in an entire study was a woman, overall. i wonder if that is sort of a compromise position that everyone would agree that we need to get rid of the low performing people in the marine corps. we keep the standards and get women who do meet them. >> i am not a marine, but i can