Not just casualties, they were dead as a result of the civil war. And then sunday morning at 10 00 on road to the white house rewind, the 1988 campaign of democratic candidate gary hart. We begin with a former colorado senator announcing his candidacy in denver and then facing questions about an alleged marital affair what w a woman. And then his plan to reduce from the white house. And the life of civil rights activi activist huerta. And they would beg the union to send anyone but her to negotiate contracts. However she was at the forefront of that effort for a reason and her name above which is interesting, because among in of the participants of the Farm Workers Movement, when you interview them and hear about them, they talk about her. And at 8 00 on the presidency. He just kind of tensed up and said those doson of a those partners, did they ever invite me to play golf at their fancy country clubs or did any of them invite me to their clubs and he goes on and on. And his lip was quivering. That is one of the few times in all of the three and a halfplus years that i was so close to him that he was a wellcontained, disciplined man, very disciplined and he knew how to keep it in and he erupted when he was talking to don. And he was just saying, not a god damn and he hated them for it. Former nixon assistant butterfield and bob woodward reflect on the former president s personality and policies from watergate to vietnam. For the complete American History tv weekend schedule go to cspan. Org. Up next, a discussion on the challenges and benefits of integrating women into the armed forces. A Defense Department official says there is to quota for the number of women in combat roles and women will be expected to meet the same physical standards as male counterparts. Held by the council or foreign relations, this is about an hour. The future of the military. Were starting things promptly. 8 30 and a half. Today we have with us juliette buyler, the principal director of force resiliency of the office of undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness. Gayle lemmon, from women in Foreign Policy at cfr and an author of the untold story of women soldiers on a special ops battlefield just out in paper back. And she said that three of the women from the book are in the room, so we will be putting you on the spot later. And we also have agnes shave who are is a senior political scientist at the Rand Corporation and has done many studies on the issue at hand. So we start with the first question. Last december secretary of Defense Ash Carter opened all combat roles to women. Could you give us an update on where does it stand. Sure. Policy into action. Yes. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for having me. And as kimberly said, so the secretary announced in early december he was opening all remaining positions to women and during that announcement he directed that the service develop detailed implementation plans to come back to him by the first of january explaining exactly articulating exactly the details an how they would make this happen. We set up an Implementation Group cochaired by the deputy of defense and the join chief of staffs and we combed through and had several meetings with the vice chiefs and the leadership and looking at each of the services and cross briefed each other on the details of the plan looking to make sure there were no issues and everything was covered and they had addressed all of the secretarys concerns laid out in his december memo. Then in 9 march, the secretary, he reviewed the plans personally himself and approved the plans on 9 march and said everyone go forth and open everything no later than april 1st, which we are past that date. Positions are open and people are starting to assess and recruit and assign women and so that is where we stand today. Got it. So i guess the shorter version of that question is when are we going to see a woman navy s. E. A. L. . Well, so the short answer to that is probably at the absolute earlier the summer 2018. So the s. E. A. L. Pipeline is long and it doesnt start until this summer and the officers later in the year. So the Selection Process is long to even get into the pipeline and then given the length of the training it takes about two years. So if we have a woman in one of the first two classes, you still wont even see the first one until 18. And same for rangers . So the rangers as this group knows, the ranger course is significantly slower. So the army did recruit the first female enlisted infantry. Shell sign up and go to the course later in summer. And it depends. The academy, when they graduate, there are number of women at west point and the Naval Academy who have identified they are interested into going into the career track and they will get commissioned shortly and go to their course. Each course is different based on the service and education. Taught at the army corps of engineer last year and if i didnt ask, i would be in trouble. So we were talking about beforehand that there is a certain fiction that women havent already been in combat because in the past decade plus at war they have. And gayle, you said you just covered some remarks that where they the commander brought that out. Yes. First of off, good morning. Im really delighted to be here and to have all of you here at an early morning. So thank you. Thanks to this incredible panel. And really for me, from a storytelling perspective, it is a huge privilege and a journey to bring a store i about which i was entirely ignorant to life. Which was back in 2011, there were women on night Time Operations alongside army rangers and navy s. E. A. L. S and other special operations teams seeing the kind of combat experience by less than 5 of the entire United States military. All while the combat ban was very much in place. And for me, the story was never simply a war story, it is a friendship story because so many times we forget what we havent seen is the connection among women in the same way weve seen the connection among women in that kim has covered beautifully for years which is this bond of war. Which we often associate only with men, actually has been experienced by women. And at the end of the day it is really about service and sacrifice and patriotism and serving a cause greater than yourself. And gender is secondary to it. And it is really now that our stories are catching up, that were starting to see the reality of that. And i was at an event for ashleys war paper back launch last wednesday at the National Infantry museum in columbus, georgia, right next to ft. Benning and colonel five coat who opened the army to women and talks about the accustomed Ground Combat rule. And i thought it was very powerful because the truth is the commanders in the field were working around these rules and at war, trying to figure out how to get the best people and the jobs they needed and working around systems, one of the soldiers who was here was in a job that was coded for men for years before the combat ban was lived. A female could not be in that role when you tried to put it in that system but her commander wanted the best person for the job. So i think really for me the best story telling takes us into the world that we didnt know that exists and ashleys war was a way to tell a story about the fact there was a Exceptional Group of soldiers that answered when the country asked, well before they were officially there. Allowed to do it. Correct. And of course, if you were an mp and escorting a convoy from one point a. To point b. In iraq or afghanistan, you were frequently under fire and having to fire back. Absolutely. And also, the mps have long been integrated, which is something military police, for folks not super familiar with this conversation, have long been men and women and women have been leading in that arena. And so i think that sometimes we talk about these issues as if we just discovered them yesterday night at 11 00 p. M. When the truth is that many of these conversations have been going on for years and women have been very much a part of americas post 9 11 wars. And you did some of the studies on this, including studies of certain organizations like the marine corp that didnt want this integration to happen. Were on record saying we want to exclude certain jobs to women. So what was some of the draw backs that people brought up . Well, so, rand did a large suite of work on this. And we did work for many of the services, as well as some work for juliette on the standards piece. And we didnt look so much at drawbacks per se, but we were focused on implementation in much of our work. And as a result of that, we sort of focused on lessons learned. So this is not new. And we have had previous waves of integration of not just women, but other out groups such as gays and lesbians. And there are some similarities between those outgroups and those previous waves. So we tried to draw out some of the lessons learned. Especially from previous occupations that were opened, such as engineers, aviation. And what we found is that we really didnt do a very good job at documenting that process, and identifying those lessons learned. So we really emphasized to the services as they do this, they really need to focus on monitoring the implementation along the way so they could identify issues quickly and adjust course. And that they can learn from the process. So the process needs to be flexible enough for them to adjust along the way. We also looked at lessons from four militaries. And one of the major things, especially with the marine corps work, we tried to emphasize, initially they came back and said, we have this goal, if were going to do this, we have this goal of very large numbers. And we emphasized to them that nowhere in the world are we seeing large numbers. Were talking nowhere in the world, that has done integration. That has done this that are seeing large number of womens in combat roles. Low single percentages. Those are the type of numbers were talking about. And in the special Operations Community, that is even smaller. And so we emphasize to them that, you know, if your trying to define success in this integration process, and youre defining that based on numbers, youre setting yourself up to fail because the likelihood is so small that youll be able to recruit these large numbers. So and that is we dug into that a little bit more and there were two main reasons that the numbers wer so low in foreign militaries. This may not be the case here. It may be different. But in foreign militaries, it was because women werent really interested in these positions. And secondly, they couldnt make the standards. So there were twofold there. So that brings us back to you and the question of, as the policymaker, do you have a quota of women that you want to try to absorb into the combat roles . And how do you keep people from the im not sure i keep hearing over and over, im conscious of the fact that there are four women up here discussing this and so i have to play devils advocate, i hear from male officers, you just know that there is going to be pressure on the bureaucracy to lower the standars, to make the numbers. And so we heard that also. The short answer to the question is no, there are no quotas and no goals. I want to come back to, i do want to make a point about the marine corps. What gets lost in this a lot is that there is this narrative that the marine corps was opposed to integration and i dont think that is true. As somebody who is a retired marine myself and who has lived this and watched the marine corps, the marine corps did a significant goodfaith amount of work here and i think it is important to recognize that they asked for exception, but a very discrete exception. So the marine corps recommended opening armor and artillery. The marine corps opened a vast number of positions and a degrees exception on infantry and alongrange recognition. And that is important. And the concerns that the marine corps raises, the air force and navy, had very similar. So the marine corps was not that far off from everyone else, just the only one that chose to request an exception and that is an important point that gets lost. With regard to the standards, yes, we hear that all of the time. When you look at secretary carters memo and he has the guiding principles, he talks about the need to make sure we have the right standars and that they are occupational specific and current and operationally relevant and that is the core and the standard of everything that we do. And once we that is why it was so important to review and validate the standards. Because now we have a ability to stand behind a standard that we can explain and articulate and it is required to do the job. And recognition, right. The number of women that want to do the jobs are small and the number of women that could meet the standard beyond that is even smaller. So there is a full recognition that the numbers may be very, very small or not at all. And that is what the secretary said. So equal opportunity doesnt mean equal participation. We recognize there may be, again, very small or maybe none, so how do you guard against that, right . By having a solid standard that everyone are you publishing that standard so everyone knows what it is and could tell if it changes. Oh, yeah. Absolutely. So all of the services well let me back up. So all of the services have again, i dont want to the services have had standards. But weve never drilled down in the manner that we had this time over the past three and a half years. So each of the services again went through every single occupational standard and clearly defined what the standard was for entry into the occupation, and then also what the standards are for not only an entrylevel soldier but then a sergeant and then the standards for a Sergeant First Class or Gunnery Sergeant are different than the standards for a prc so they have laid out clearly minute manuals what the standards are for asession and the standards for recession. And so those are out there. And i would say theyve institutionalized the process over the three and a half years because they learned a tremendous amount on how to do this right. Versus the direct combat rule said you could close an occupation to women if a vast majority couldnt do it. And what does that mean . It is subjective. And so now it is a definable standard. Does that make sense . It does. And the critics out there are going to say lets see it in operation. And it is fascinating, i covered the opening of Ranger School of two women and in march and then again in florida in swamp phase in august. And you know, i went to write one piece, which was just sort of a straight and i ended up writing a piece that had the word standard in it 79 times because it was the only word anyone wants to talk about, woman or man. The advisers for Ranger School said we never want the standard lowered. Make sure your piece reflects that. And the men i talked to, some of whom id known from reporting ashleys war, would say, i dont care but no standard could be lowered and there were questions around there. And that is why they brought reporters in a couple of different times showing there is not a different standard. And at the end of the day, any time humans are involved there is a subject of level and they worked har to show this is a transparent process and the standard is the thing that is most important. And the one bit of humor is that at 4 45 a. M. Which i know you know those mornings when i met at the leadership at the benning gate, this one very storied retired ranger said to me, what is amazing, i never heard people show this much love for the standard when i was active duty. And so i think it is interesting to hear his perspective that the standard has always been something that is shifting but now when Everything Else is shifting around it, it is even more important for that standard to be something that everyone understands and that has not changed for anyone. Yes. Well i do want to your point about standards. Standards will shift. Equipment and requirements will change. Standars will change because of the equipment changes and therefore the ability needed to operate that equipment will change. Exactly. But we have clearly defined what it takes to be successful on the battlefield and the standard is derived from that of what is required today and there will be pressure and people that will ask questions about why not enough. But youll always have to be able to drag a comrade who weighs 200plus, plus their 80 pound pack and gun and wounded out of the line of fire. Is that one of the standars that never stops. Exactly. We use the example of tankers. The round weighs what it weighs an you have to take it out of the rack and must have the Upper Body Strength to turn in the seat and load the round in the breach. It is a defined weight and height and distance and it doesnt matter and did and i use the term man, women, giraffe or bunny rabbit and it takes it to do that. And what about the studies that women have a higher incident of injuries after heavy weightbearing occupations, so you might have a high dropout rate from these combat positions, where they might wash out after a year or two. Will the military find a way to absorb them back into another role . Yeah, i think that theyre working through that. But what we found from foreign militaries is that there are ways to mitigate. Like what . Against those injury rates. Equipment is one of those. And i think just as they were drilling down to the standards, which i think really this issue of really nailing down the standards is one of the real benefits that came out of this whole process. Both for men and women. Because they thought through rationally what does somebody, regardless of their gender, need to do for that occupation. But theyre now drilling down into what kind of equipment changes they can make. Again, both for men and women. So for instance, caring your pack. You could adjust the waist belt for people who have shorter torsos, men or women. Those kind of issues. I know their working through the armored plates and things like that, again for people with shorter torsos. So i think so rather than making it gender specific, they are just thinking about integrating smaller people. Right. Exactly. But there are womenspecific injuries that ive heard about like hip displacement from large marches because the hips are shaped differently in men than in women. Right. Again, foreign militaries have gone through this process, some of them have integrated like which ones. Since you said you looked canada has