justice department officials join paypal executive vice president to talk about financial crimes involving money laundering, drug trafficking and cryptocurrency. you can also watch on the c-span now video apple or online at c-span.org. announcer: washington journal. our live forum involving you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics and public policy. from watching, -- washington, d.c. and stay, the recent u.s. credit rating downgrade. former director of the congressional budget office and visiting fellow at george mason university. kristin ringel of the national parks conservation association discusses access to and the state of u.s. national parks. c-span's washington journal. join the conversation live at 7:00 a.m. eastern wednesday

morning on c-span, c-span now or online at c-span.org. announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies and more including buckeye broadband. ♪ >> buckeyeroadband supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. our guest is peter feaver. he is a political science professor at duke university. he served in the national security advisor's role in the clinton and george w. bush administration.

peter is here to talk to us about public confidence in the u.s. military. welcome to washington journal. guest: thanks for having me. host: you keep regular track of this gallup organization, trust in the u.s. military the lowest in 2 decades. when we use the term "confidence," what does it mean? guest: the military can do what we have asked them to do, and what we have asked them to do is meaningful to our lives. it is declining for predictable reasons. host: what does that mean / guest: the props that prop up public confidence in the military are all eroding.

it is also hollow because part of what props up public confidence is political correctness, the belief that you have to say thank you to the military for their service. if you had a chance, you might have a different attitude. that bias is propping it up by as much as seven points. host: i was going to ask you about the title of your book, "thank you for your service." that has become an oft used phrase. your book is an inside look at where that confidence has been among americans. guest: americans don't know much about the military, but the one thing that they know is that i other americans seem to hav

confidence in the military and it is corrected to show thanks. part of the "thank you for your service," awkwardness is "i feel like i have to say thank you." high regard for the military, but at high remove from my personal life and that creates opportunities for misunderstanding, alienation, and then as we have seen, a dramatic drop in confidence. guest: what's up -- host: what surprised you the most? guest: i was genuinely surprised by the degree of hollowness. we were saying we had confidence when in fact we didn't. i was also surprised at the way american so far have shielded the military from accountability for their performance.

one of the props of public confidence is our belief that the military has performed well. the outcome of the war in afghanistan, quite negative. the american people are not blaming that on the military yet. they are blaming that on the political leaders of the other party. that gives the military an opportunity to play the partisan blame game. they side with -- that insulates them from criticism and perhaps from accountability. host: does our confidence in the military track with more -- fewer and fewer people are being a part of the military. guest: yes. one of the props undergirding public confidence is personal connection. did you personally serve?

if you did then you are likely to have higher confidence than someone who didn't. but the percentage of americans who had that personal connection either directly or through their family is declining. it is the demographics. the two generations has passed. a generation that was drafted has passed too. the size of the military forces are shrinking. it is becoming smaller and recruiting from within their own ranks, recruiting the children of those who have served. that means fewer and fewer americans have a personal connection, and thus we would expect over time there confidence will go down. host: i want to ask you about the struggles of recruiting. we are talking about public

confidence in the u.s. military. peter feaver is our guest, professor at duke university and author of a new book. "thanks for your service is the book." we welcome your calls and comments. (202) 748-8000 is the line for republicans. (202) 748-8001 is the line for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for all others. if you are a veteran or active-duty, (202) 748-8003. how do the confidence numbers pair with recruitment efforts by the military? guest: they work on the margins. that is to say, a driver of the recruiting crisis. the driver is the labor

economics of available jobs outside in the civilian workforce. when the economy is going well, the civilian economy is hard to recruit. when the economy isn't doing well, the civilian economy is easier to recruit. the percentage of americans who qualify, who are of age to serve and qualify on medical and ability grounds, they do not have waivers for using drugs for instance that pool is shrinking. the percentage of americans who are of that group, shrinking pool who are inclined to join, that goes down. those are all the major drivers. confidence on the margins affects it by saying if you have higher confidence in the military, you are more likely to recommend to others that they serve, so it influences the

influencers, the coaches and uncles who say "you should serve." host: peter feaver's book points out that the primary drivers of public confidence in the military are patriotism, performance, professional ethics,, party, personal contact, and public pressure tell us more about party do you mean political party? guest: yes. it is high in the aggregate relative to other public institutions, but that is driven by historically very high levels of confidence among republicans. the gap between a republican and democrat on average is very wide. what has happened in the last several years as republican party members have begun to

attack them military is republicans going down in there confidence. it has contributed to a decline in confidence among republicans. host: you mentioned the withdrawal from afghanistan. that brings me to a chart in your book that does not convey that well on here. war events by party. the invasion of grenada during ronald reagan's term, the gulf war in george w. bush's term, the u.s. support in bosnia, 9/11 of course, the capture -- the killing of osama bin laden during the obama administration. each of those you see a spike in

public confidence in the military. guest: this is the single highest driver. if americans feel they are at war, they will rally to the flag. part of rallying to the flag is rallying to support the troops. particularly after a dramatic event like 9/11 when suddenly all of the danger that used to be over there is now over here, that caused a big drive-up in public confidence across-the-board. we are leaving that war frame, and more and more americans are not considering themselves to be at war. yes, they see a future threat in china, but it did not feel the same as it did in the weeks and months after 9/11. that opens the door for americans to return to a more traditional view about the

military, which is ambivalence. host: how long has gallup been tracking this? guest: it has been going on mostly since the vietnam war. there has been a steady increase in public confidence in the military since the vietnam war. it drove up particularly in the reagan years. in the 70's there was this malaise, this belief that the military was hollow itself. the attempt to rescue the hostages in iran went poorly. reagan buildup and from the victory in the cold war helped propped up public confidence in the military. as the chart indicates it goes up and down with perceived performance and perceived need. there have not been those dramatic successes are dramatic urgent threats that would create

that war frame. host: what about factors like how much we spend on the military, or you mentioned the withdrawal from afghanistan or things like sexual harassment cases in the military, how much does that play into confidence in the military? guest: americans have a high expectation of high ethical behavior by the military. that is one of the props that supports public confidence. when there are reports of scandals, when it looks like the military is struggling to control the problem of sexual harassment, that is also going to drive down public confidence in the military, and rightfully so. public confidence should not be untethered to the actual performance and deserving this.

the military needs to not worried about being liked. it needs to worry about being deserved of public confidence by being professionally competent, by being professionally ethical, and staying out of partisan politics. this is the big change over the last several years. we have made the military combatants in our culture war. we have dragged them into some of our most divisive social issues, and then held them hostage or put them in the limelight and ask them to defend controversial policy so they become combatants in a culture war that should be fought by civilians alone. host: peter feaver is our guest. we welcome your calls and comments. joseph is next, syracuse, new york. joseph, are you there?

ok, hogans ville, georgia, active-duty lined, mike, go ahead. caller: veteran, drafted vietnam, 1972. our armed forces are very much divided as you accurately said, sir. most of the officer corps when i was in were independents, and most of them still are because we were taught early in basic training that we all wear green and we all bleed red. my immigrant family came to this country in the early 1900s, and it was after the armenians were slaughtered by the turks and were going back after grace. we all know that greece and turkey have been at war for thousands of years. that has never been resolved.

i commend you on your insight. i would only make one suggestion. my grandfather served in world war i for the u.s. army. he said that is the price you pay for the privilege to live in this country. i would change the name of your book. instead of thanks for your service, how about "welcome home"? guest: that is a great suggestion. you raise a number of points. the military is a traditional halfway point into american society for those on the margins. we are celebrating the 75th anniversary of the integration of african-americans into the military. the struggle of civil rights was played out in the u.s. military, and the success of senior

african-american leaders in the military became something of an inspiration for folks outside the military ranks to push for civil rights. this has been a role of the military, but it was driven primarily by the mission need, the need to have a capable military. you are seeing some of the current culture war controversies playing out in a similar way. people say "do we need to focus on these issues?" and the u.s. military says "yea h, we do>" thanks for your service. you are a child of someone who served in the military. that is good but that becomes a recruiting challenge as the percentage of americans who have served go down. those are the only americans

propensed to join. host: up next is bob in pittsburgh. good morning. caller: i never thought i would say this five years ago, but i have four neighbors who have kids. i have seen on tv they are going to go after terrorist white people in the military. right off the back to these white kids are not going to go in. the other thing is bmi. they are going for military people. this is crazy. this has never happened in this country.

vei is about white supremacy in the military. host: bob bringing up diversity, equity and inclusion. guest: one of the things that color demonstrates is the partisan critiques of the military have penetrated. there was a recent poll from the reagan foundation that shows when you primed the american people and ask them public confidence is going down, why do you think it is going down? the answers you get follow the talking points in the culture war. democrats would say the confidences going down in the military due to a rise of extremism, meeting right wing extremism, and the military. republicans would say confidence is going down in the military

due to a rise of wokeness. that is a different matter from saying these problems are actually rampant in the military. the military is not woke. very few members of the military would meet the technical definition of woke whatever your personal definition of that is. the military does need to recruit from every walks of life. the the u.s. military has a disproportionate number of african-americans serving. they want to make sure african-americans are represented in the enlisted ranks and at the top ranks of military leadership. having a military with leaders who look like the rank-and-file, that is good for morale and it helps improve the performance of the military.

last thing i would say as the caller did point out, the recruiter draws disproportionately from the recruiter smile, the american midwest where most bases are. those who claim falsely that the military is obsessed with dei, that could shape the attitudes of influencers. host: let's hear from alex on the republican side. silver spring, michigan. guest: it's maryland. i have a kind of unique perspective, as you can tell from my voice i am a little bit younger than the previous couple of callers. i would like to comment a little bit on the difference between the age group of the people who

would have been in a prior generation service members and the millennial generation, but also have a little bit of background in myself in my family, both of my parents are academics, but i joined the military afterwards, first time in my family -- the army andi was stationed in afghanistan-- -- the army and i was stationed in afghanistan. my brother joined after me in the navy and a few years ago finished his service. the thing is with your particular topic being what the public thinks about the military in terms of, i believe, effectiveness and utility is it

is really from the perspective of everybody i have served worth in terms of the enlisted and stuff like that, you get a sense of the incompetency of everything. i understand the sense of patriotism that people get into, and the outside perspective people have, but when you are in it and you are doing all the dumb stuff and you have things like, my brother served on the uss boxer and they come up years later with news articles being like "all the water systems on the entire ship or polluted from backwash from dumping into the ocean," and things like that, nobody i have served with our i work with now -- or i work with now wait even bat an eye at that. that is perfectly reasonable

given what our expectations are. it has been a big, generational issue for all of the people i have served with at least. guest: you raise two important issues. one is the generational issue. younger generations on average have lower confidence than older generations. it is ironic because the baby boomers who are raised in the 60's when there was so much social turmoil about them military and draft dodging and charges of baby killing leveled against the military, that generation has now some of the highest confidence in the military of any of the cohorts in america and it is the youngest generation, which has the lowest confidence in the military, however, the youngest generation has the lowest confidence across all public institutions, not just to the military, so there seems to be a problem with organized

institutions in general for the younger generation. it is not narrowly focused on the military. in terms of military incompetence, that is a perennial of american sentiments towards the military. that is part of war. war produces all sorts of chaotic mistakes. the winning side is not the side that never makes a mistake, but the site who corrects their mistakes faster. world war ii was the paragon of american pride in its military, but many things went wrong in world war ii. today, our military is far more professionally competent, far more capable of protecting and saving its own members of the military then was the world war ii generation, but you are

right. when they do fall down, when they don't provide those expectations, that hurts morale, that hurts recruiting. host: did you serve or did close members of your family serve? guest: my dad served in the canadian air force. my parents were immigrants. i served in the navy reserves. host: the headline is " recruitment is down, a real threat." the wall street journal points out the shortfalls just this year. this army is 15,000 short of they are 5000 goal, the navy is 10,000 of their 65 -- of their 65,000 goal the navy is 10,000 short of their goal. host: the main challenge --

guest: the main challenge recruiters identify is competing with civilian jobs providing the same benefits as the military and that seemed to be more flexible in what they are offering. one recruiter mentioned he was trying to recruit a kid to join the military, and the kids said "can i do this since working -- remotely working?" this generation approaches the military and all job opportunities with a much more flexible approach. there is no question there is a recruiting crisis. retention numbers remain very high, so those who are in the military, and see the value of it, and to see the mission necessity of a capable military to meet the chinese

threat, they are staying in for now. i am hopeful with aggressive efforts, reforming the way we recruit, may be reforming the flexibility of the options we give, that we can recruit the next generation, but there is no short it is a challenge, and it is a number one challenge. host: the graphics showed that the marines had met their goal for recruiting for 2023. our line for active military is (202) 748-8003. on that line is pete in ventura, california. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i served in the air force in the late 70's under president carter, so it was a time of peace. there wasn't a lot going on. no wars. it was right before -- the shah

was still in power in iran. right when i got out was when the hostages were taken. i think carter send a force over to try and get them, but it ended up in disaster in the desert, and then reagan was ready to come in, and he warned in his speeches that they had to be released, and they were. i served because there were 4 friends of us growing up. we were 19, 20 not doing much with our lives. we talk to a recruiter and they offered guaranteed jobs and to have my buddies went to the winter. i had to wait until the summer to go to training. it was kind of an adventure. my dad served in world war ii. he was actually off the coast

somewhere off of finland on a ship when the war was one in europe -- was won in europe. at that time merchant marine was not a qualifier of service, so he knew he would get drafted in korea. he was a communications guy. he rarely talked about it. i think that something with young people today with the, not compulsory, but may be more incentive to file sense of pride, or at least get involved with a program like a job corps where you can serve and get a sense of helping your country. right now though, if you look at what is going on in the world,

when president biden abandoned afghanistan, and left the base there, and the fiasco that ensued after that, to me that was a real slap in the face to veterans. they left all that hardware there. if we ever have to go back in there for any reason, they will be using all of that equipment and hardware against our troops and their allies. i like the model that president bush the first did when he went in and liberated kuwait. he stopped and said we will not take iran -- iraq rather. that was it. everybody knows what happened after 9/11. bush the second went in and we broke it, and we didn't have a plan in place, and chaos and sued -- ensued. i see that pattern. world war ii, we go in -- war is

bad enough. you need a mission. you need to go in, wipe out the enemy -- host: thank you for your call. guest: there are a lot of threads to pull on. you joined the military at a time when public confidence in the military was fairly low and probably deservedly so. those years military leaders themselves said they had a hollow force. it shifted from a very problematic draft to a very controversial decision that we can do this just through recruiting. in the late 70's, mid 70's they were struggling. stripes captures that moment very well. the two leads in the military are running because they don't have anything else.

they failed as taxi drivers. that was at a low in the esteem of the military. it is where you go when you don't have anything else. since they have raised the profile on -- of course, we do not want to move back into the recruiting we faced in the 70's where we are only taking those who have no hope of contributing to society. some people say because the recruitment challenge is so great, we should shift back to a draft. i think that is a cure that is worse than the disease. the draft army worked in the crisis moment of world war ii, but did not work over the long term, meeting the long-term

challenge of a military during the cold war. we just expect a higher level of professional competence from our military today than what a draft military can produce. i would rather save the all volunteer force for other reforms and fixes then go back to a military draft. finding other ways for the public to contribute to the public good, yes, but a draft? that is not the way to go. host: on to pennsylvania. good morning to dave. caller: i am a retired military officer. i started off as an enlisted infantryman. i am a baby boomer generation. my dad was a world war ii veteran. all the males in my family started in the early part of the

1900s in the service. one of the things i would like to say in my time as a military member, enlisted and as an officer, i have learned so many things that you can apply to everything. i work at the post office now, which is totally fubar. i learned great decision-making skills, leadership, communications training, so many things i can apply to all walks of life. how to be a great team member, other than being in really competitive sports, there is nothing like the military, especially if you are in tactical type units or you go, to the field a lot you get to go to war. i was in iraq. all those things come together.

i have a lot of confidence in the systems. guys or girls are going into tactical units. regardless of what other kind of political things are out there, there is good training and good people. the people who stay in our dedicated -- in are dedicated. the economy always plays a big part in these cycles of recruiting and retention. usually recruiting. people get into the higher company grade officer levels at the 8 or 10 year mark, and people decide to stay in. guest: i will give a shout out to for the postal service, because that is another institution that traditionally the public does have high regard for. the public seems to love their postmen or post women, the letter carrier. it is an institution that was in

financial crisis, and then briefly in 2020 was in danger of being pulled into the partisan wars. the debate whether postmaster general louis dejoy's, the reforms he was proposing were going to interfere with the election. what we have seen is an example of the turnaround where because those charges against the post office were ungrounded, because the post office was able to meet the demands of the mai l-in, election the ballots arrived safe and secure and because postmaster general louis dejoy was able to forge a bipartisan consensus, working with both republicans and democrats to have a financial plan to save the post office,

the postal service now is on a better footing than it was 3 or 4 years ago. there may be some lessons therefore the military. take the military out of the bipartisan debate, and look skeptically at the most partisan critique.s is there any evidence for this? it works on cable news shows, but is there evidence for this? have leadership focus on the mission. when that happened in the postal service, they were able to turn the organization around. host: does your book offer solutions? how do we restore confidence the military? guest: some of the drivers of declining confidence are demographic we can't control. i i'm not advocating a return to a war. that is another chair that is

worse than the disease -- cure that is worse than the disease. the challenge will be for military leaders to meet the mission without the prop of high confidence. i have a device for the military and it is twofold. focus on deserve it. do not -- focus on deservedness. focus on professional confidence, performance, staying out of partisan politics, deservedness -- the rest will follow. when you get that awkward moment in the airport, "thanks for your service," and many personnel have told me that it is an awkward moment. ask the person who is thanking you "what do you do?"

if they say "i run a television show that informs the public." "thank you for your service." "i teach eighth grade math." "thank you for your service!" there are many ways to serve honorably. we in the military celebrate all the ways, we want to recruit some of the best but we also went to acknowledge what everyone else is doing. if the military focuses on that they will not have to worry about the consequences of declining confidence. host: we go to dave in florida. go ahead. caller: thank you for my call. feaver, i am very impressed with your book and your knowledge. i agree with a lot of what you have to say. my grandfather served in world

war i in the coast guard. my father was in world war ii in the navy. i was in the navy from '79 to '98. we see a trend in the military after vietnam. , after vietnam, after president carter was elected in '76, great man, i don't feel a great president, but i can dictate history. from the military -- i can't dictate history. from the military side we had decreased troop levels and internal investment in the military, medical, housing, the commissary, all the big things that make the big picture of service in the military. in '80 we saw president reagan elected. we saw a huge increase in

spending. uyr operational temp -- our operational tempo picked up significantly. then the goal for in -- gulf war in '91. with that came decreased funding. we almost experience a mini vietnam hangover. then from 9/11, it was another increase in funding in the military and patriotic fever. i think some things that hurt the military sometimes, or hurts military recruiting is we need to make sure that we have clear rules about what is expected from the military. guest: you raise a very important point. one of the reasons military leaders track how people feel about the military is it

correlates whether the public supports increased funding for the military. the military today feel like that the level of funding is not commensurate with the threat, the increased threat. while funding has gone up a little, bit in recent years it is below the rate of inflation and it will create a larger and larger gap between what is asked of the military to meet the new political environment and what is given the military to meet it. there is nothing more american than underfunding defense. every great war the american people have found themselves in, these wars happened after dramatic cuts in the u.s. military, and we paid for that mistake in the blood and lives of the earliest responders who were sent to fight with

inadequate training and inadequate arms. what today's military leaders are trying to do is avoid that problem happening again, but it is a daunting fiscal environment. host: here is david in denniston, texas. caller: your book sounds fascinating. you just mentioned the wars we got onto when we were under prepared and underfunded. you can say the same thing about the spanish-american war. it happened after the civil war. we were in the same scenario that way. the indian wars after the u.s. was first founded, the 1890 indian wars. we had far greater losses of troops by far than what happened with custer in 1876.

you need to go back to the founding of the country and the issues related to the founding of the military where the militia was not paid for months, if not years and went into all sorts of deprivations and separation from the rest of the population. the difference now yo me -- to m e, england would have lost to napoleon or hitler's, because napoleon and hitler were both ready to invade england. they couldn't figure out a way to deal with the english navy. in the case of hitler he had a problem with the air force. we are blessed by 3000 miles of water on one side, and more than that on the other, and that is the only thing that has saved the u.s. from its inception. guest: you raised, an important

point and this is a point that i emphasize in the book. if i have advice for the military, i also have advice for the civilian side of the house. civilians need to be more careful about not making the military combatants in the culture war. much of the politicization of the military is done by us. civilians need to do a better job of teaching our own history to our people, to our younger generations. many of the historical incidents you mentioned might be new to a lot of students in america. they might not have studied those parts of american history, the warts but also the successes of american history. i am a proponent of reviving

civil studies education in america. you will realize there is a lot to celebrate as well. that is one of the things we can do on the civilian side to boost civilian understanding of the military institution on which we depend to defend our constitution. host: the new book is "thanks >> the greatest town on earth is a place to call home. at sparklight, it is our home. we are all facing our greatest challenge. we are doing our part so that it is a little easier to do yours. >> sparklight supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to

democracy. >> on wednesday, officials from the private sector and that will government discuss space strategy in colorado. that starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. after a: 30, more from the same event. -- 8:30, more from the same event. you can also watch on the c-span now video app or online at c-span.org. >> the c-span bookshelf podcast makes it easy for you to listen to all of c-span's podcasts on fiction books. -- nonfiction books. we discuss things with authors of books on history. listen to