LIVE: The Military Today with John Kelly, Carlos Del Toro, and Kathleen Miller

This live episode was recorded at Mount Vernon as part of The American Military at 250: The 2025 George Washington Symposium.

Retired Marine Corp General and former Chief of Staff John Kelly, the 78th Secretary of the Navy the Honorable Carlos Del Toro, and former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller the Honorable Kathleen Miller discuss the American military today in this panel conversation moderated by Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky.

Leadership and Legacy: Conversations at the George Washington Presidential Library is hosted by Washington Library Executive Director Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky. It is a production of the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association and Primary Source Media. For more information about this program, go to www.GeorgeWashingtonPodcast.com.

Episode Transcript

(00:01):
This past November 7th and 8th we hostedour annual George Washington Symposium
at Mount Vernon This year our theme wasthe 250th anniversary of the American
military, and we were lucky enough tohost a series of fascinating conversations
with expert historians, researchers, andfolks involved in the military today.
We are excited to bring you two ofthose conversations in podcast form.

(00:25):
The audio will be a little differentthan our usual podcasts, as these
conversations were recorded live,but we hope you'll agree that the
content more than makes up for it.
Today we're bringing you a panelconversation I moderated on the American
military today with General John Kelly,former Secretary of the Navy the Honorable
Carlos Del Toro, and former DeputyUnder Secretary of Defense Comptroller,

(00:48):
the Honorable Kathleen Miller.
I hope you enjoy this conversation.
Okay, that was a veryexcellent scene change.
Good job team.
Thank you all for followinginstructions and not disappearing.
Um, as you can tell, Iam not David Preston.
Uh, David Preston, unfortunately, as youheard this morning, was unable to join us.
Um, we are very grateful that theMount Vernon Ladies Association

(01:09):
runs Mount Vernon and does notshut down like air traffic control.
Uh, so, uh, because I am not DavidPreston, if I haven't met anyone,
my name is Lindsay Chervinsky, I'mthe Executive Director of the George
Washington Presidential Library.
We're thrilled that you arehere, uh, with us tonight.
This is our final panel of this portionof the program and our penultimate
panel, uh, or conversation of theentire George Washington Symposium.

(01:34):
I suspect that my, uh, stage matesdon't need much introduction, but I
will give one anyway just in case.
The Honorable Carlos Del Toro wassworn in as the 78th Secretary
of the Navy on August 9th, 2021.
He was responsible for over 900,000sailors, Marines, reservists, civilian
personnel, and an annual budgetthat exceeded 210 billion dollars.

(01:58):
That's with a B, not with a D.
His priorities included securing thetraining and equipment successful naval
operations demanded and addressing themost pressing challenges confronting
the US Navy and the Marine Corps.
Prior to that, he had a 22 yearnaval career of his own, uh,
numerous tours of duty at sea.
And after retiring at the rankof Commander, he founded SBG

(02:20):
Technology Solutions in 2004.
He holds a master's in National SecurityStudies from the Naval War College, a
master's in Space Systems Engineeringfrom the Naval Postgraduate School,
and a master's in Legislative Affairsfrom George Washington University.
So, like so many of us, he justcouldn't quit going to school.
Next, I have the Honorable KathleenMiller, who is a distinguished

(02:40):
leader in national security.
She is the former Deputy UnderSecretary of Defense Comptroller.
I will have her explain what thatis for those of you who don't know.
Um, but she oversaw a 2.46 trillion, witha T, budget in the Department of Defense.
Prior to her appointment to thisposition, she was a career member
of the Senior Executive Servicewith 16 years experience as an Army

(03:03):
executive in the fields of financialmanagement, logistics, and operations.
She holds two Presidential Rank awardsand currently serves on number of advisory
boards in both the industry and academia.
And lastly, General Kelly wasborn and raised in Boston.
He enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1970.
He was later commissioned as an InfantryOfficer of Marines and saw service

(03:25):
overseas and across the globe, includingwartime service in the Middle East.
Other duties included time spent inlegislative affairs serving as special
assistant to the Supreme Allied CommanderEurope, and serving as the senior military
assistant to two secretaries of defense.
His most recent and final assignmentwas the Combatant Commander,
United States Southern Command.

(03:46):
He retired after nearly 45 years ofactive service on February 1st, 2016.
Responding to the opportunityto serve the nation yet again.
General Kelly, after confirmation bythe US Senate, assumed the role of
Secretary of the Department of HomelandSecurity, and then for nearly two years
as the White House Chief of Staff.
So there's been a lot of discussion aboutthe Continental Army today and, uh, not

(04:10):
naming names, but there has been a requestto at least discuss a little bit the Navy.
So, uh, I'm going to turn it over to you,sir, to give us a little primer on the
Continental Navy, and then maybe you couldtransition from there to explain what is
it the Secretary of the Navy does today?
You said I could speak forabout an hour, right, Lindsay?
That -- you'll be standingbetween people and alcohol.

(04:31):
So I'm not sure that'sa choice you wanna make.
I'll be, I'll be brief then.
Uh, first of all, thank you so much forthe privilege of allowing me to serve
as your 78th Secretary of the Navy.
And let me say what a great honorit is for me to be here today
with my distinguished colleagueKathy, and with General Kelly, for
whom I have the greatest respect.
Now, let me say that during my threeand a half years as Secretary of the
Navy, I often said that I expectedour nation's admirals and generals to

(04:55):
be primarily strategic thinkers likePresident Washington, you might say, as
we've heard throughout the day today.
I completely expected that theyunderstood how to deter and fight
both tactically and operationally, ofcourse, on the battlefield and at sea.
However, what I really needed them todo, what America needed them to do was
to always be thinking strategically likeGeneral Washington and how to deter our

(05:20):
adversaries from going to war and havecalled to war how to win decisively.
To facilitate that approach, we investedmuch time and resources in their training.
More importantly, we invested more intheir education from the time they entered
our military to the day that they retire.
We focused on continuous life learningthroughout their careers, from bootcamp
to basic officer training, fromservice academies, ROTC or OCS, to

(05:44):
postgraduate school, to our senior, uh,studies at advanced, uh, or colleges.
I always knew, and I said that thedifference between us and our adversaries
was the quality of our service members.
They script their soldiers to fight.
We educate our soldiers.
A fundamental difference that makes allthe difference, and one that I believe

(06:04):
made a difference as well during theAmerican Revolution, as we've heard today.
And as discussed today, equallyimportant to our democracy, is
this fundamental principle ofcivilian control over the military.
In preparation for this panel discussion,since I'm not a historian, I decided to
do a little bit of additional research torefresh my own recollections of how this

(06:24):
theory was applied throughout our belovedNavy and Marine Corps, in the early days.
Much of what I rediscovered is now goingto be paraphrasing the words and thoughts
of more accomplished scholars than myself.
You see, during the American Revolution,civil military relations in the
Continental Navy, were defined byvery strict civilian control issued
by orders and directives directlyfrom the Continental Congress itself.

(06:47):
Congress initially created severalcommittees to direct and manage naval
affairs, but this led to challengesdue to administrative inefficiencies
or what we might consider todaybureaucratic waste and a lack of
naval experience also amongst civilianleaders, many believe that that be a
problem that may still exist today.

(07:08):
Civilian control structure thatexisted at the time during the
American Revolution insisted onstrict congressional oversight.
Continental Navy was establishedand entirely controlled by the
second Continental Congress, whichintended to maintain strict civilian
authority over the new military force.
A principle that became acornerstone of American governance.

(07:29):
Now, there were several administrativecommittees that were then established.
The Naval Committee.
Initially it was three members.
It grew to seven members and memberswere appointed to that committee
by the Continental Congress.
First on October 13th, 1775, whichbecame our birthday as established by
Admiral Zumwalt later on in the 1970s.

(07:50):
That committee consisted of John Adamsfrom Massachusetts, Silas Dean from
Connecticut, Christopher Gadson fromSouth Carolina, Joseph News from North
Carolina, Stephen Hopkins from RhodeIsland, John Langdon from New Hampshire,
and Richard Henry Lee from Virginia.
Now, this committee was the firstexecutive body for managing naval
affairs and playing a crucial role inestablishing the Continental Navy itself.

(08:13):
The Marine Committee was the nextcommittee that was established in
December of 1775, and this committeewith one member from each colony now
assumed broader responsibilities,including directing fleet movements
themselves, appointing officers andbuilding and purchasing vessels.
Navy boards followed subordinateto the Marine committee.
Navy boards were created in thePhiladelphia and Boston area to handle

(08:37):
regional logistics such as applyingand outfitting ships themselves.
And then finally, a Board ofAdmiralty and an agent of Marine
was established later in the war.
The administrative structure shiftedto this board and finally to this
single agent of Marine, RobertMorris, who effectively managed
Naval affairs due to the inefficiencyof the multi-member boards.

(08:58):
So there were many actual challengesthat rose during the continental times
with regards to civil military relations.
First, the lack of naval experience.
Many members of Congress andthe committees were lawyers
or merchants with little.
To no military or naval experienceleading to operational inefficiencies
and sometimes poor strategic decisions.

(09:18):
Even John Adams, a key figure indrafting the first naval regulations
had no naval experience, butrelied on maritime law knowledge.
Now, disobedience oforders was another problem.
Could you imagine that in the NavyMarine Corps, the distance of central
government from naval operations andthe professional pride of experienced
sailors sometimes led to friction.

(09:39):
The most notable example was CommodoreEssic Hopkins, the Navy's first
commander in chief for today's equivalentof the Chief of Naval Operations.
It was ordered to the ChesapeakeBay, but instead on his own right,
he decided to sell to The Bahamasand seized supplies at Nassau.
Could you imagine doingthat today, General Kelly?
Absolutely
Spoken like a true marine.

(10:00):
He was later censured by Congressfor disobeying orders and eventually
dismissed, highlighting the civilianauthorities resolve to enforce its will.
However, one historian on the subjectquotes, "furthermore, and perhaps
most importantly, the raid on Nassaubrought the war to the English in an
area where they felt more strategicallythreatened than the American colonies."

(10:22):
The West Indies was the locationof importance as we've heard today.
Paranoia of losing the West Indieswould frequently def, uh, deflect
English interest and militaryassets away from the war in America.
English preoccupation with thisarea would nearly cause her to
abandon the war in 1778 and may wellhave cost the war in the long run.

(10:43):
If true, it might well be said thatthis raid was the first tweaking
of this English concern, and atweaking which may have set the tone
for those later English decisions.
As such, the raid of Nassau was justnot a minor tactical victory, but
a great strategic victory as well.
We also face challenges with regards toresource and funding issues, never having

(11:07):
enough money, and of course, relying onprivateers, which also created challenges
in terms of command and control.
The lessons learned and formed thedevelopment of a formal department of the
Navy years later, after the ContinentalNavy was disbanded, 1785 after the war.
And it would be another 13 yearsbefore the Department of the Navy
itself was established by PresidentAdams and Benjamin Stoddard becomes

(11:32):
our first Secretary of the Navy.
And I had the privilegeof serving as the 78th.
Thank you so much for that introduction.
So I will share with you, some ofthe audience may have heard this.
I had the pleasure of having a, atour of the Pentagon, uh, last year.
And we were walking down one of thehallways and there's this, there's
the Benjamin Stoddard portrait.
And I saw it and I waslike, Benjamin Stoddard!

(11:53):
Because he's in my, in my latest book.
And the, the person who was givingme the tour said, wow, you're
the first person to ever respondto Benjamin Stoddard that way.
And I, and I said, can I take a picture?
And he was like, no, but I'm reallyglad that you're excited to see
him, so you too can look for himwhen you're next in the Pentagon.
Well, I greeted him every morningand say good morning to him.
So,

(12:14):
Um, so Kathy, can you explainto us, what is a Deputy Under
Secretary Defense Comptroller?
Well, it does whatever the Under Secretaryof Defense Comptroller wants her to do.
Um, but in, in, um, theory and inpracticality, the, the office of the
Under Secretary of Defense Comptrolleris responsible for all the money
matters in the Pentagon, includingdown through the military departments,

(12:38):
um, creating budgets, doing audits,um, looking at IT systems and, and
putting in new IT systems that helpwith the management of the department.
So basically it's the money managerfor the Department of Defense.
So I would imagine that depending on theday, you're either the most popular or
least popular person in the Pentagon.

(13:00):
I actually don't ever remembera day being most popular.
Going back to the, uh, there'snever enough money statement that
was just made a little while ago.
Um, but, you know, everything is, iswaiting, when you're in the comptroller
business, it's trying to help theleaders deciding on what gets funded,
how to wait, what are the options,um, how can we look at what we do

(13:24):
have from Congress and apply it tothe most strategic threat that we see
facing us, um, at that particular time.
And it, it's a real struggle to, togo back and forth between immediate
threat and immediate needs and a morelonger view of what the challenges
are gonna be for the nation.

(13:44):
I imagine.
General Kelly, what, what, from theother side of that relationship,
when you're thinking about, youknow, your strategy, both short term
and long term, what was it like tonavigate that civilian relationship?
As you get more and more senior,you interact more and more
with, with, uh, civilians.
And by the time you make GeneralAdmiral, uh, much of your time is

(14:06):
interacting with, uh, civilians.
And again, because of our concept ofcivilian control of the military, uh,
senior officers, their efforts are to helpthe Secretary or, frankly, the President,
or Congress, to understand, uh, youknow, the, the, uh, shortfalls perhaps.
When you have a budget that says, oh,when you have a, a strategy that says

(14:28):
you're supposed to deal with China,with, uh, Iran, with the Middle -- and
all of that, and then the services,look at what it takes to do all of that.
And they say, okay, we need more money.
Or you come forward and say,these are the things we can't do.
And it's not like the generals andthe admirals refusing, it's just
simply the, our civilian leadershave got to know, uh, what, what the

(14:51):
shortfalls are what the possibilitiesare, and it's very well appreciated.
I mean, it, the, I, I think I, I,you'd agree the, the interaction,
uh, between, uh, the, the servicepeople, uniform people in the Pentagon,
very, very, very good, but just asgood really over on Capitol Hill.
I served there for four years, uh,and in the White House, uh, I would,
when I was, uh, a three star workingfor General, or Secretary Gates, and

(15:14):
Secretary Panetta, I would go to theWhite House and, and, uh, you know,
not with the speaking part necessarily,but to sit there and the admirals and
the generals that came over to talkto them about whatever the topic was.
Uh, it was a very interactivepro -- and, and, and frequently, almost
always, the, uh, our civilian leaderswill say, thanks for your candor.
Thanks for that.

(15:35):
Uh, so it's, it's a very positivething, I think generally speaking.
And, you know, sometimes youhear about the, the, you know,
the tensions and all that.
Not really.
I mean, the military officersare like, you know, Mr. President
or Mr. Senator or whatever, uh.
Here to tell you what the,uh, what the reality is.
And they're all very receptive.
So that cordial working relationship,is that inst -- are there

(15:59):
institutional protections for it?
Is it a culture that's built?
And this is, you know, this issomething you guys can all jump in on,
but that's a pretty remarkable gift.
How does that come about?
I, I think it's founded ontrust, first and foremost.
Right?
And the willingness of the civilian leaderto be able to trust his military advisors.
In my case, it was the Chiefof Naval Operations and the

(16:21):
Commandant of the Marine Corps.
And I remember on my very first weekmeeting with both of them and being very
clear that I expected, demanded theirbest military advice, even if it differed
from what they thought I wanted to hear.
It's critically important 'cause Iwanted to understand their challenges.
The challenges were being faced in mycase, by our sailors, by our Marines,

(16:43):
the shortages of capabilities, readiness,uh, capacity, all those issues.
And so we would always have veryadult conversations amongst each other
in private, um, for me to clearlyunderstand what the challenges of
the service were so that I and my ownresponsibility can support our combatant
commanders around the world, uh, andthe fulfillment of their mission.

(17:04):
But if that trust does not exist, andit hasn't always existed, it's varied
throughout the decades, basically,based on the personalities and
characteristics of, again, in my case,the Secretary of the Navy, the Commandant
of the Marine Corps and the CNO.
But the best team is the one thattrusts each other, listens to each
other, and then execute for thebenefit of the mission, our sailors,

(17:25):
our Marines, our national security.
So I'd, I'd say I got to seethis from two perspectives.
One as a longtime career executiveon the career side working either for
political appointees or for politicalappointees through the general
officers, um, that I served under.
And in that role, it was alwaysimportant to provide my best

(17:48):
technical advice to the leadership.
And often the best technical advicewas not strategically where the
leadership wanted to go, which is fine.
And then I was left to, tofigure out, okay, so how are we
technically going to get there?
Um, if it, if it was more difficultthan, than it normally could be.

(18:08):
Then as the deputy under secretary, Igot to view that relationship from a
different side as a political appointeeworking with military personnel.
Um, I have to say I agree,Carlos, it's built on trust,
but also on shared purpose.
Right?
Mutual respect and, um, the willingness,as you said, to listen to each other

(18:28):
and understand, uh, an issue fromall perspectives before ultimately
the, the political leadershipmade a decision to move forward.
Yeah.
Uh, the, the, uh, every promotion,uh, in the, in the officer ranks,
every promotion, second lieutenant,all the way up to general, is
approved by the United States Senate.
Um, so there's some civilian controlthere, you know, lieutenants and captains.

(18:52):
But as you get more and more senior,particularly going to the four star rank,
you have to go before, uh, the Senatefor a hearing and they talk to you about,
you know, like in my case, SouthernCommand, Caribbean, Latin America, drugs,
drugs, drugs, more drugs, um, and, uh,people movement and that kind of thing.
Mostly crime as opposedto a military thing.

(19:15):
But the, the, uh, as they questionyou, um, in, in terms of this, uh,
hearing, the very last thing they'llask you is, will you commit that if
you have a different opinion than theadministration, and you'll honestly
express that different opinion?
And if you say yes, you'll get confirmed.

(19:37):
If you say no, you won't get confirmed.
So then as a, as a, as a four star and Iworked for Mr. Obama as a four star, there
were a couple of things that the WhiteHouse wanted me to do, say publicly, uh,
about some things that, uh, were in mycommand that I personally disagreed with.
Um, it wasn't, you know,illegal or anything like that.
It was just policy.

(19:58):
And, uh, the pushback is,look, I I, I don't do policy.
Generally speaking, I help you,uh, come up with realistic policy,
but I'm not in the policy business.
And, and besides remember sayingthis to the President, besides Mr.
President, I, I don't agree with you.
And if I go out publicly and say that Ido agree with you, and then the senators
have me over for a hearing, I have totell them the truth, not a good thing.

(20:19):
And he goes, good point.
So, so our commander in chief did notwant the appearance of, of anything
other than loyalty and, and, uh,commitment to the relationship between
the civilians and the, and the military.
But again, it's been my, my experienceas a senior officer that that was
always pretty darn good with theWhite House, with the Congress, that

(20:41):
kind of thing in, in the OSD people.
That's amazing.
I, I've heard some other similar storieswhere people have said, you really don't
want me to go do that hearing becauseI'm going to tell the truth under oath.
And I know, uh, I think it was, I waslistening to a, an interview with,
uh, I think it was Eric Edelman andhe had said that to, to Bob Gates and

(21:02):
he said, I can't go do that testimony'cause I'm gonna tell the truth.
And he's like, okay, we'll findsomeone else to go do the testimony.
Which is as it should be.
You don't, you don't want peopleto change their values and you also
don't want them to feel pressureto, of course lie under, under oath.
So, you know, in moments where thereis that sort of pain point where,
you know, there's disagreement.
Um, how do you go about resolving that,recognizing that, of course there is

(21:24):
civilian control of the military, butoftentimes the military is coming in
with maybe more expertise and certainlymore on the ground knowledge, depending
if it's a situational circumstance.
It's a great question.
And you know, every year the servicesecretaries and many other senior
officials have to go before theCongress and testify before what's
referred to as a posture hearing.
And to my left is the Commandant ofthe Marine Corps and to my right is

(21:47):
the Chief of Naval Operations, and youknow, and Congress sometimes would try
to play us off each other, right, wherethey knew that there might be slight
differences of opinion as well, too.
It goes back to trust again.
You know, I always counseled theCommandant and the CNO that they always
had an obligation to the Americanpeople, to the Constitution, to
the Congress, to be transparent andprovide their best military advice.

(22:10):
Now, if they were going to differwith me, I kind of wanted to know
a little bit ahead of time, right?
So that we could have a conversationon perhaps why the President, the
Secretary of Defense, myself, asthe Secretary of the Navy, were
supporting this particular policy.
And many times I wouldn't back awayfrom that position 'cause I believed
it, it was my conviction, but theymay have had a different perspective.

(22:32):
Right?
So we'd have those intelligent,mature conversations before we
go into those posture hearings.
But I would not be offendedif they expressed their best
military advice at times, that wasslightly different from my own.
I was emotionally secure andintellectually secure enough to be
able to then turn quite around atthe next question being asked by a

(22:53):
member of Congress and say, Senator,the, the CNO has provided your, your,
the best, his best military advice.
However, representing the policyof the president, the Secretary
of Defense in this nation, me as acivilian leader, are pursuing this
policy for the following reasons.
And I tried to explainmyself the best I could.

(23:14):
So, you know, it, it's, it's reallyimportant, I think, to the fundamental,
fundamental nature of our democracy,that our military leaders provide
their best military advice at alltimes, whether they're in private or
sometimes in public as they have to.
Um, but that, that they respectthe final decisions being made
by the President, Secretary ofDefense, Secretary of the Navy, etc.

(23:35):
So taking a look at internal operationsin the Pentagon, when I was there,
the deputy had something called theDeputies Management Action Group,
which was a governance forum, bringingtogether the service secretaries at
time, their under secretaries, um, andmilitary officers in various positions

(23:56):
to talk through different issues,different, um, proposals and plans.
How to put the budget togetherwas a major part of, uh, Deputies
uh, Management Group activities.
And what the deputy did was she allowedall the voices around the table to be
heard, to hear the military advice,to hear the concerns, the policy

(24:16):
concerns from different aspects of thedepartment, and hold off decisions on
that particular issue for the most part,um, until she had heard from everyone.
And then make it clear to everybodywhat the decision is and how
we were gonna move forward.
And I think that kind of internalgovernance is not far from the way we
run corporate boards today or othertypes of, of major entity decision

(24:40):
processes that need to hear from all thevoices and the experiences in the room.
It's also how Washington ran his cabinet.
But, but as far as the decisionmakers, of course, in our, in our
world, it's the Secretary of Defense.
The chain of command isSecretary of Defense and then the
President of the United States.
And again, this whole effort is tohelp those people, uh, and their
staffs, understand what the issues are,because they're not military people.

(25:04):
They don't know anything aboutaircraft carriers or, you know,
this, that, or the other thing.
And to help them, uh,make an informed decision.
And ultimately, you may disagree with it.
I mean, you try to, you die in theditch trying to convince 'em that
they're going down the wrong road.
But once they say decision made,decision's made, and you go do it.
Um, and, um, and what I found, andI think, uh, you, you would both

(25:27):
agree, you do have an awful lot ofpeople that speak for the Secretary of
Defense and speak for the President.
You know, when I was at SOUTHCOM, thenumber of calls I would get, the number
of calls I would get from the White Housesaying, well, the President wants this.
I say, okay, that's a pretty bigdeal, so have him give me a call.
Uh, and um, and seriously, uh,that's a big deal and that's a

(25:49):
presidential, so I'm, I'll come up.
Uh, and of course I would rightaway call the Secretary of Defense
and say, I just got a call and,no, no, don't worry about it.
You did.
So you have a lot of very goodpeople trying to help, whether
it's the President, SecDef, SecNav,trying to execute what they want.
And sometimes they forget that they're,I mean, they're in the staff process,

(26:10):
but they're not in the decision process.
And uh, they have to be reminded.
The White House, you know, when I wasthe Chief of Staff of the White House, I
found that there was some people callingand I got everyone together and said, you
don't call a war fighter, you do not callanybody and say the President wants this.
If the President wantsit, I will call them.
Normal staff work naturally goes on.

(26:33):
But if you ever call down into anyorganization, say the President
wants this, uh, you are probablygonna work at treasury tomorrow.
Something.
Um, but seriously, and, andit's, it's well intentioned.
These people are, are tryingto do what the boss wants.
But, uh, but the boss has to have, whoeverthe boss is, has to have all of the
information so he or she can make a, youknow, the right, well-informed decision.

(26:57):
So earlier we, uh, had Kori Schaketalking about the sort of history
of civ, civil military relations.
And one of the things that she talkedabout was Washington made the case
to the soldiers that we are goingto be deferential to Congress, not
because they're good at their jobs,they're not, they're terrible.
But
-- Same, same thing.
The, we, we let the parallel hangout as we are doing our talking.

(27:21):
Um, but because we, we don't wantto be, uh, because of who we are
as, as the army, and we can't reallyask Washington what that was like
because he's obviously no longer here.
And so I'm, I'm hoping it's okay if I aska question like this, how do you follow
an order that that is constitutional,that you believe deep in your bones is

(27:42):
stupid, but you've been ordered to doit anyway and you've done everything
you can to convince them as, as yousaid, but you have to do it anyway.
Like, how do you get yourhead in that mind space?
For the three and a half years thatI was secretary, I was opposed to
a particular program that was beingproposed by the Congress that had not
just Republican support, but it hadsome Democratic support as well too.

(28:02):
And it was gonna cost the nationapproximately $40 billion to
actually deploy this capability.
And the reality of it is thatwas, there was another capability
that was quite frankly, in, in myhumble opinion, sufficient enough.
And I very vocally opposed it.
In discussions with individualmembers of Congress, I spoke about it.

(28:23):
If you wanna find out which one itis, go look up my posture hearings.
They'll know, uh, I opposedit in the posture hearings.
But in the last budget, they, Congressactually passed through mutual agreements
that were made and started a pilotto actually fund, begin funding the
program, and a program management office.

(28:45):
As much as I hated the thought thatwe were going down that path, I felt
strongly that it was my constitutionalresponsibility based on the oath that I
took as Secretary of the Navy to followthose orders and to establish the program
and to not slow it down in any way.
Even though I was accused by severalpoliticians of actually attempting to

(29:06):
slow it down, which was as far awayfrom the truth as it possibly could be.
That's how much I believein our constitution and the
oversight responsibility that theCongress has over the executive.
And it's those checks and balances thatwe have in our constitution that is
critical to the success of our democracy.
When you start breaking down those checksand balances, trying to develop loopholes

(29:30):
and other ways to go around the law,you have a real threat to democracy.
I was not gonna go down that path.
General, how do you do that when,um, lives are literally on the line?
If it's legal order, you carry it out.
Uh, if it's legal order that youknow is a bad order, uh, it's tough.

(29:52):
You know, the, when you're a commanderin combat, every one of those young
Marines, soldiers, whatever, sailors,they're like your sons and daughters.
You know, you're gonna send them outon, on the best day, you're gonna
send them out and some of them willbe killed or seriously wounded.
Um, when you are executing anorder that, that you really feel
is stupid, to use your term, atechnical term, um, it's, it's harder

(30:17):
still, but it is still legal order.
And, uh, if so long as it's legal.
And I I tell you, you live, whenyou're a senior officer, you live,
I won't admit to saying this aboutlawyers, you live with your lawyer.
The most important personin your life is your lawyer.
And to go to him or or her andsay, look, they're telling us to
do this, is this, please tell meit's, it's, it's not a legal order.

(30:39):
They said, no it is.
'cause they've got their lawyersand they've checked it out.
They know that's really hard.
It's really hard.
But at the same time, um, it is alegal order and you carry it out.
Uh, and you know, hope for the best.
I, if I could just follow up on that.
You know, I think the relationship maybebetween the lawyers and the military
is not all that well known and, youknow, there's a lot of conversation

(31:00):
about what is and is not a legal order.
Um, how, I mean, how regularly, yousaid, you know, you live, you live with
them, but are are, is that true forsort of all levels of the military, or
is it really only the senior commandthat is really close with the lawyers?
No, I, it, it exists at differentdegrees throughout the chain of command.

(31:21):
Obviously Secretary of the Navy hada general counsel who, you know,
was obviously his client as theDepartment of the Navy basically.
And to determine, make determinationsof that, you also have military
JAG officers who are criticallyimportant to the administration of
our military services as well too.
Um, and they should be ultimatelyextremely objective in providing

(31:44):
their best military advice.
Right.
And not bend the knee to anybody.
I also expected that best militaryadvice from my Marine Corps JAG
and my Navy JAG as well too.
Um, so it's extremely important.
The relationship is extremely important.
It's important that you have peoplein those positions, the highest
degree of integrity and character andcompetence to fulfill their mission.

(32:09):
Whether, you know, a, anorder is legal or not.
I had the privilege of serving for 26years in uniform service as well too.
I would argue this is whyexperience matters, right General?
I always used to say it takes 20 years tomake a captain in the United States Navy.
It takes 30 years to make a, an admiral orMarine Corps General in the Marine Corps.
And it's that experience that providesyou the confidence, the knowledge

(32:31):
necessary to be able to make thosejudgment decisions that the General had
to make from an operational perspective.
Because my responsibilities wereadministrative, they weren't operational.
That changed in 1947.
Um, with the National Security Actof '47 that took operational control
away from the service secretaries andgave it to the combatant commanders.

(32:51):
You know, I think one of the, oneof the challenges as we're talking
about, uh, what, what the relationshipbetween, you know, civil and military
today, is that, uh, less than 1% ofAmericans serve, um, in the military.
And when we're talking about theContinental Army, I think someone said, I
think this morning, was it Mark that saidthat it was the largest percentage of the

(33:13):
American population in any American war?
Did I hear that correctly?
Great.
Love when I get facts right.
Um, so, you know, when we're talking aboutthe Continental Army and the Revolutionary
War experience, that is a very differentexperience than what we're facing today.
So how does that separation in, inlived experience, in understanding, in

(33:34):
sacrifice, how did that affect your work?
Maybe we'll start with you, General.
And then Kathy, I would love toknow, you know, from sort of the
civilian side, how did you, howdid that affect your work too?
Well, as far as the 1% issue goes, Imean, it used to be, you know, when
I grew up, when I was a kid, uh,virtually, you know, in the fifties

(33:56):
and sixties, virtually every male in mylife was a veteran of either World War
I, there was still tens of thousands ofthose guys alive, World War II was the
largest number, Korean War, um, and theexpect -- and we had a draft, and the
expectation was that you would serve.
Um, and then of course, goinginto the sixties, the draft
riots and all that kind of thing.

(34:17):
And over time, uh, the thinkingabout the all volunteer force, and
of course it was, it was implemented.
So 1% serve.
They're, uh, a differentgroup of young men and women.
They come from all walks of life.
But generally speaking, there'ssomeone in their life, uh, whether
their dad, their uncle, a teacher,the football coach, that had served.
Um, but they're pretty -- and the,and the good news is, the American

(34:39):
public, even though they, you know, haveoverwhelmingly not served and generally
don't know anyone that is serving, thereputation of the US Military in the
eyes of the American public makes the,the American public feel very warm and
positive towards, towards its military.
Um, and that has a lot to do withjust, okay, we know you're out

(35:00):
there with your lives on the line.
We know you're out theredoing the legal thing.
We know you're out thereobeying legal orders.
Uh, it's, it's, it's kind ofa pretty special relationship.
We have lost a lot, I think, bynot having more people serve.
You know, you hear sometimes, uh,bring the draft back or something.
Um, but the US military is awesome inits ability to execute warfare, and

(35:23):
much of that has to do with the bestpeople out of our society, step forward.
And they're trained, educated, uh,and very confident in what they
do, over there, is protecting youin your homes, in your families,
and they don't even know your name.
But they're, they love it.
Yeah.
So I think some recent surveys haveshowed that, um, the American military

(35:45):
remains one of the most respectedAmerican institutions today, although
-- It's pretty much the only one left.
Yeah.
It's a dropping a bit thoughfrom, from the high during
-- I'm not kidding.
If you look at the polls, all the numbersare really bad except for the military.
Yeah.
So with that respect, you know,other people look at recruiting
and retention, for example, andthis year is going very well.

(36:06):
Um, I've been part of studies in thepast that have looked at, you know,
recruiting as a proxy for the Americanpublic's belief in the military.
It seems to vary a lot dependingon economic conditions and, and
what other, um, kinds of things areassociated with military service.
For me, in one of my roles as theadministrative assistant to the Secretary
of the Army, which is actually a civilianrole, that is, um, stated that it, we

(36:31):
must have an assistant secretary, uh.
Administrative Assistant to theSecretary of the Army, it's in Title 10.
In that position, we had a cadre ofpeople called the Civilian Aids to
Secretary of the Army, and they wereindividuals appointed from civilian
life on a voluntary basis who broughtto the Secretary of the Army and took

(36:53):
from the Army back to their communities,this conversation and connection
directly to the military people.
It was a wonderful program.
I understand it was stood downearlier this year, but it enabled
the Secretary of the Army to reachout, particularly into communities
and cities where, you know, not neara military base, um, to bring more

(37:15):
knowledge about our army, more knowledgeabout the benefits of service, and the
importance of Army to American public.
So I think those kinds of connections,the thing that allows the Army to
connect directly to the citizenrythat we serve are super important.
And it'll be interesting to seehow those kinds of connections

(37:36):
are forged as we move forward.
Yep.
If I could, if I could add something,when I, when I was a, uh, uh, uh,
SOUTHCOM commander as a four star,we would, we did a conference in
leadership and ethics and all thatkinda thing, and the press were there.
And, uh, I had made mention that, uh,you know, the US military at the time,
the US military has always been verywell regarded by the American public.

(37:57):
But since the Vietnam War, it, itrecovered an awful lot of what had lost
during the war for a lot of differentreasons we don't need to go into.
But the point is, since 1978, the mostadmired, respected institution in the
United States of America, US military, andit was always in the upper, uh, roughly
the middle part of the 80th percentile.
Right under were law enforcement.

(38:20):
Now we've gone down into the lowseventies, but we're still number one, uh,
most admired, respected, and the co -- andpolice officers are now just under So
we've lost a little bit public opinion,but the point is we're still number one.
So, at the Q and A afterwards, one of thereporters said, don't you think that's
dangerous in a democracy to have the, um,the, the people think that the US military

(38:46):
is the most admired and respected.
Don't you think that's, youknow, threatening to a democracy?
I said, I don't.
'Cause it shows how much admirationand, and, and whatnot they have.
I think what's very, very, uh, dangerousis the United States Congress is that 9%.
They have not been in 40 years, over 15%.

(39:08):
They are the least respected.
And I think that's an issue, and I'mnot beating, you know, I think there's
very hardworking people in Congress,senators, congressmen, staffers,
but, uh, the, the opinion is, ispretty scary when you think of it.
The, the, the Congress shouldbe the number one, I think.
But anyways.
Yeah, no, I think you're right.
We, we have talked here at Mount Vernonbefore about the importance of, our, our

(39:33):
institutions are mostly civilian upheld.
We, most of our day-to-day lifeis not enforced by military
might or by police power.
And so if you don't have citizens that areupholding the institutions or trusting in
the institutions and they don't believethat the institutions will, you know, meet
their needs and serve what they serve,the the people, then they will eventually

(39:53):
crumble if there are not people there.
So I think you're absolutely right.
Secretary, did you wanna jump in?
I was just gonna say leadership matters.
It matters in your senior militaryleaders and it matters in your civilian
military leaders as well too, theDepartment of Defense and anywhere
across the federal government, obviously.
The last four years we investedan enormous amount of resources.
When I said our budget went up by25% and people and retaining people.

(40:17):
And when we left, we had the highestretention in decades in the military,
uh, across all military services.
So you get what you invest inand we invest in our people.
I have no doubt that our senior leaderstoday care about our military service
members as much as George Washington did.

(40:37):
But we're investing a lot more moneyin their caring and their feeding,
also thanks to the Congress and tothe American public and people, 'cause
this is your American taxpayer money.
Um, and uh, we thank you forthe investment that you make
in our military services.
So we're gonna turn tosome audience questions.
I'm gonna start to fold them in, but, um,I'm sure all of you could listen to this

(40:58):
for many hours more as I easily could, butwe don't actually have that much longer.
So if you have any questions,please use your QR codes on the back
of your programs to get them in.
Uh, we will have, uh, a cocktailreception afterwards, so perhaps any that
we don't get to, you can maybe imposeupon them to answer directly to you.
But, um, one question that came up, uh,prior actually to this panel, but I think

(41:21):
it's an interesting one and it buildsoff of General, your, your conversation
about the shift away from the draft.
You know, I think, people arecurious, should there be some
form of compulsory service?
You know, other nations have it.
Certainly Israel has a model of compulsoryservice, we used to have a draft.
There are obviously benefits to aprofessional service in that they're more

(41:42):
professional and they're more trained,and you're, you're likely to have a, a
better functioning military, but are welosing something if we don't have that?
So I would love to know just all three ofyour thoughts about should there be some
form of service to make people buy in?
Well, I would say, uh, ser, serving thecountry, uh, gives you, you know, bragging

(42:05):
rights and it makes you feel good.
That's why police and firefightersand the military are so happy, what
they, what they do with their livesbecause they're serving, uh, society.
They're not making a lot of money,but they're serving society.
Uh, I would love to, for our countryto find a way to get young people.
Involved somehow, whether it washelping, uh, you know, student teaching

(42:27):
in in the inner cities, or civilianconservation, or something like that.
But, but, um, we would lose a lot if wewent to a draft, uh, for military service.
We're doing quite now, God forbid, ifwe ever go to a huge war, selective
service kicks in, uh, you know, kindof a World War II type scenario.
But, we'll, we lose a lot because theyoung men and women that are in it today,

(42:50):
whether they stay for four years, whichis generally what they stay for, or
they stay forever like I did, um, theywant to be doing what they're doing.
And, uh, when you bring someone in kickingand screaming that doesn't want to go
into the service, you lose something.
Uh, even though they're great Americankids and all that, they're, they just
miss that sense of, I wanna serve.

(43:11):
And there's no nothing inour society today that really
encourages them to serve.
They don't have to serve.
Um, and they still step forward in,in, in the right kind of numbers.
Uh, and again, I go back to.
They are willing to go out there andfight in the worst places on the planet
so that you and your families are safe.
That's incredible.

(43:31):
Yeah.
So this was a topic of a conversationat a conference that I was at earlier
this week about, you know, couldwe or should we, to help our young
people understand better their civicresponsibilities to the nation, have
some sort of compulsory national service.
For me personally, the hackles on the backof my neck go up with the word compulsory.

(43:52):
I mean, this is, this is aland of liberty and choice.
And so I think as you look at, um,national service or types of national
service, how can we encouragepeople, um, to try it out, right?
So maybe it's, it's associated withcertain college loan forgiveness or,
um, you get extra time in grad schoolif, if you were to, to, to undertake

(44:18):
some kind of national service.
I don't think that the right place toput people who don't wanna be there is
in the military, because everybody inthe military needs to be committed to
that mission that they're given and, um,be part of that team carrying forward.
So I think this is one I'd liketo see the American people have a
dialogue about and figure out wherethey would like this nation to go.

(44:41):
I, I agree.
And, and not just for military service,uh, but for public service as well too.
And, you know, AmeriCorps hasbeen around for 25 years, but
that budget's been zeroed out now.
Um, you know, it should be allvolunteer, whether it's serving in
the military or in public service.
If I, if I could, I, I, when Iwas at DHS I was, uh, I spoke to a

(45:03):
large crowd about several hundred.
They were all police, uh, firechiefs from around the country,
and they were all volunteer.
And the vast majority of, you may notknow, vast majority of, of firefighters in
the United States, over 80% of volunteers.
So they do it on their own time.
They take time off to become qualified.
All that kind of -- remarkable.
So I'm talking to several hundredof these folks, all volunteers.

(45:24):
And um, and it just, I just, in themiddle of my thinking in, in terms
of talking, I said, uh, just outtacuriosity, how many of you, uh, are like
involved in Boy Scouts or Girl Scoutsand, you know, 80% raise their hand.
How many of you coachlittle league or soccer?
80% raise their hand.

(45:44):
Um, you know, how many of you areinvolved in your churches in, in teaching?
You know, same number.
And I said, how many of you are veterans?
Almost every one of them was a veteran.
That's, we gotta somehow getthat message to the rest.
'Cause it's so fulfilling to, uh,live a life where you're giving
back, at least to a degree.

(46:06):
It's so fulfilling.
I think
there's a question here about sort ofthe role of civilian leaders and the
relationships perhaps to veterans.
So, you know, Secretary, whenyou came in and the civilian
position, you obviously broughtwith it a, a background of service.
And so I'm curious, and of course,General Kelly, when you were in more
administrative positions, you obviouslyhad a lengthy tenure of service.

(46:29):
Do you think that for thesepositions, I know we can't say that
it's maybe required, but shouldbe strongly encouraged, or is it
really just a nice bonus to have?
I think what cures most is that youhave empathy towards this issue, right?
Um, doesn't necessarily mean thatyou had to have served yourself.

(46:51):
Because there's been plenty ofexamples of great civilian leaders
who've been wonderful seniorcivilian leaders in the military
and have led, uh, forces in, in war.
Um, but experience does matter.
But what's also equally important isthat you have empathy towards these
sailors, marines, you know, airmen,uh, soldiers, care about their issues

(47:16):
because it's a matter of readiness.
And not just about them, butfor their families as well too.
Because the morale and welfare of ourmilitary families is, is equally important
as that of our service members, right?
So having empathy and appreciation anda willingness to not just care about it,
but make a difference and improve theirlives while they're in the service, as

(47:38):
they transition outta their service,and transition over to the Department of
Veterans Affairs, if they, uh, need toparticipate with all the benefits that
veterans get, is extremely important.
But I wouldn't say that it'snecessarily a requirement.
You know, we've had secretariesof Veterans Affairs, for
example, who have had militaryexperience and some who haven't.

(47:59):
Some of the ones who haven'thave done as good a job or even a
better job than those that had it.
So I think, uh, caring, beingempathetic, being smart, being
strategic, like I said earlier,is really what makes a difference.
I think there's more than oneway to get experience here, um,
other than serving in uniform.
I did not serve in uniform, butI served the nation for 41 years.

(48:22):
I went to many of the same, uh,professional military education
opportunities, including theUS Army War College as, uh,
my uniformed colleagues did.
And I used those opportunities tounderstand how to best support them,
how to best support the nation, howto best support the military in the
roles that I was gonna undertake,which were gonna, frankly, mostly be

(48:44):
administrative and managerial, right?
So there's more than oneway to get the experience.
And I, I think now we see an influxof people coming from industry with a
completely different mindset as theylook at how to defend the nation, how to
do so from a position of, of hopefullyeconomy, um, as well as efficiency,

(49:05):
and safeguard the lives of thosesoldiers, sailors, airmen, marines,
and guardians that we have out there.
So I think the, as you said, Carlos, the,the ability to have empathy, understand
your responsibility over the lives ofthose individuals and carry out that
responsibility of the authority, theauthority that you've been given under
the Constitution is really important.

(49:27):
I think the military service would benice to have, but, uh, you know, one of
the things I observed, certainly when Iwas at the highest level, watching people
like Secretary Panetta, uh, you know,the President of the United States, um,
first and foremost, you have to have hadsome significant executive experience.
You've had to have run some organizationthat was, you know, uh, and you, you,

(49:49):
uh, again, the most successful onesI ever saw were very open-minded,
allowed people to disagree with them.
In fact, welcome, disagreement.
Um, they didn't always fold, butI mean, they welcome disagreement.
Um, but these jobs are so big.
Secretary of the Navy, Secretary ofDefense, I mean, President of the
United States, that to go into thosejobs and not having had some level of,

(50:11):
you know, real, no kidding decisionmaking, executive experience, you're not
gonna be a particularly good secretary.
Um, I once asked, uh, you know,it, was President so-and-so,
uh, qualified to be president.
I would, I would immediately sayno, and people would gasp and all
I said, but no one is qualified.
The job is so big, so complex.

(50:33):
So you say, okay, well then whatmakes for a successful president?
Well, someone -- or Secretary of Defense,or Secretary of the Navy -- someone
who comes in with executive experience,someone, they listened, they're open
to people disagreeing with them.
They know how to lead, uh, as opposedto, you know, force people to,
that's what, that's what you need.

(50:54):
And, and yeah, I mean, to,to have been a, a marine or
something would, would be nice.
But, uh, generally speaking, what happensis when you do have someone come in, but
one of our past, uh, he was very, verygood, but he is a sergeant in the Army
during the Vietnam War, and he used totalk all the time about, everything I
think about is from a sergeant's pointof view, and he said, I fight every day

(51:15):
to think about what these issues are fromthe Secretary of Defense's point of view.
'Cause I default to my army sergeantexperience, you know, and, and
so it's a nice to have, but it'snot, I don't think a requirement.
I, uh, there's a great questionfrom Rob here about what thoughts
you all have on changes in civicliteracy and the, the media landscape.

(51:36):
And maybe how, you know, that haschanged how civilian leaders are informed
in the civ mill dialogue, or maybesome of the challenges that the lack
of civic, uh, literacy and, and themedia have posed to that relationship.
I, I, it's critical to our democracy.
These are issues that must be discussedin every administration, Republican,

(51:57):
democrat, independent, whatever.
They have to be discussed at alllevels throughout, in different degrees
perhaps, but at all levels throughout.
And there has to be a commitment to it.
'Cause again, it's fundamental tothe principles of our constitution.
It may not be directly writteninto our constitution, but it's
fundamental to it, I believe.

(52:19):
And so having those discussions,uh, whether it's in words, uh,
discussions, whether it's in books, inlibraries, in military institutions,
um, it's critical to our democracy.
And I encouraged it at all levels.
Uh, whether I agreed with whatwas being discussed or not

(52:40):
being discussed was irrelevant.
The discussion itself helps toeducate those who don't understand the
importance of civil military relations,civilian military relations and,
and the role that it plays in, in ourconstitution and our freedom itself.
Uh, you often hear the discussiontoday about bringing back civics
courses in our schools, but and -- andthat is a worthy discourse to have.

(53:04):
Um, but I'd also say that it's importantto continue the civics discussion
as we educate all of the current andfuture, um, civil servants out there.
When I came through, there was a greatcourse called Leadership in a Democratic
Society that was taught through the,um, federal Executives Institute
in Charlottesville, um, under OPM.

(53:25):
And I understand that that's, that'sno longer in existence, and you think
it'd be really interesting to see howwe're going to continue forward, um,
teaching the next generations of civilservants and civil leaders about the
requirements of our constitution, theauthorities under which they operate,
and how to continue, um, this democracy.

(53:46):
So last night, I, I opened our,our symposium with some remarks
and I talked about the two pillarsof what it means to be a republic.
The first is the civilian controlof the military, and the second
is the peaceful transfer of power.
And if you lose either of them,then you are something else.
You are, you are no longer a republic.
And the second one, the peacefultransfer of power is, is mostly on

(54:10):
its face, uh, civilian exercise.
Um, and it is also the weakest moment wehave in our democracy on a regular basis.
So what is the role of the military inthat civ, that civic moment, or that
civil moment when it is so essentialto our character, um, but it is also
such a, a weak, potential weakness.

(54:32):
I'll give an example of it, mecoming into the role, as Secretary
of the Navy and me coming out ofthe role as Secretary of the Navy.
You know, there's an extensive educationalprocess that takes place where you have
military officers brief the incomingsecretary or whatever the position
might be, on every poten -- everypossible topic that you could imagine.

(54:52):
You know, it's been wonderful listeningthroughout this seminar to all the
different topics that have been discussed.
Because I think in one way or another,I had responsibility for so many of
them throughout my time as secretary.
And I welcomed that best militaryadvice that was being given to
me, uh, during that timeframe.

(55:13):
But I also remember very distinctlythe week before I left, the incoming
administration had asked me tospend an hour with them, basically
simply expressing what my concernswere about our, uh, Navy, about
our Marine Corps, and wound upbeing about two hour conversation.
And I left nothing off the table.

(55:35):
I went through personnel issues,capability issues, challenges that we
were facing, what my recommendationswould be if I had remained.
And I think that's critical, again,to this peaceful transition of power.
I will tell you that itdoesn't always happen that way.
And again, it's up to the, my opinion, theintellectual and emotional maturity of the

(55:58):
civilian leader to lend themselves to thatprocess for the benefit of our democracy.
Some do and some don't.
Again, when I came in, I reached outto every single one of my predecessors,
my Republican and Democratic.
And by the way, uh, two of ourSecretaries of the Navy has just
passed these last two weeks.

(56:18):
Uh, Paul Ignatius, uh, who was aDemocrat and Bill Middendorf, who was a
Republican, and I cared deeply about allthose former Secretaries of the Navy.
That's the way democracyshould work today.
I'm not sure I can improve onthat except to agree with Carlos.
There are processes in place to easethe transfer of power between outgoing

(56:41):
and incoming appointees and leadership.
But I also, um, think it's a goodpoint, time to remind ourselves
that we all swear an oath to theConstitution, whether we're in uniform
or whether we're wearing a civilianuniform and service to the nation.
And that is the place where weneed to place, place primacy
in times of our greatest risk.

(57:02):
General, what's the role of theuniformed military in that moment?
Uh, to march in the parade, go home.
No, seriously to march.
They're, they're citizens.
Um, the role is we, we have aconstitution that says how to do
it, and doesn't include the militaryother than, as I say, marching.

(57:22):
So, um, you know, and, and the influence.
I, if I could just take a minute, Iknow we're a little bit over, but when
I was in, in Southern Command, when Iget ready to take over down there, you
probably remember in the eighties and theseventies, you know, the human rights,
um, records down there was just absolutelyhorrible, and a lot of it had to do
with some of our clandestine, you know,civil war producing events down there.

(57:45):
But anyways, uh, and the go and the, andthe militaries were, were almost dominant.
They were kind of democracies, but ifyou, the presidents and people like
that, they looked at the General tomake sure that they weren't gonna be
taken out back and, you know, shot.
Um, and when I took over SOUTHCOM,I started, I would always meet
with these human rights groups fromall over the, the Latin America.

(58:09):
I, when I went down there, I wouldalways meet with the human rights
groups, and they give very high marksfor human rights in Latin America today.
Uh, and the militaries are, are behind.
They, they don't get involvedin the politics anymore.
And I, I said, well, why was that?
And they said, well, because after allthe bad times we started, the Latin

(58:29):
American countries started sending theirofficers to American military schools.
And you all started sending yourofficers down to Brazil, to to
military schools down there.
And we learned from you what themilitary should and should not do, or
the real role of a military is not tosuppress people, but to protect people.

(58:49):
Uh, and I won't tell you the, thegovernment, but I got a call one night.
The, the president of one of thegovernments down there was arrested.
He was a little bitinvolved in drug dealing.
And, um
-- Isn't that kind of an either or, yes or no?
Not so much a little bit.
But, um, I was asked to call the, the,the, uh, senior general in that country.

(59:10):
Because there, there were people,state department, afraid that
he was going to, you know, maybecall out the, call out the troops.
And I called him and I said, look, for40 years your record has improved so well
over in terms of your human rights recordand your, and the role of the military.
Keep, keep in the barracks.

(59:30):
Don't go out.
Let the system deal let thecivilian system deal, please don't.
'Cause if you do, you're gonnabe back to being just another
Latin American, you know, country.
Uh, and he didn't go out.
Now, I don't know if he had intended ongoing out, but to be able to call directly
to him and say that the, what, whatyou should do is stay in the barracks.
And the country had a, an election,they've got a democratic president.

(59:54):
You know, so, so our influence isnot only here in the United States, I
mean there's, and there's hundreds ofstories like that around the country,
around the world, countries thatused to, militaries used to be very
involved in politics aren't anymore.
And as we close, can we just do ashout out to, I know that there's
active duty military members here.
Thank you.
Men and women.
And Oh, by the way, I'm so proud of ourfemale military service members today.

(01:00:17):
They are rock stars and havebeen since, well, they've
always served as we've heard.
They've served since beginning oftime, and as our military warriors.
But as they were given authoritiesto be able to participate
in combat and elsewhere.
They're amazing warriors, and I'm soproud of each and every one of them.
I just wanna give a shout out toall our active duty out there.

(01:00:38):
Thank you, thank you.
Thank you for joining us this week onLeadership and Legacy, and thank you so
much again to all of our symposium guests.
If you're in the Washington DC area, makesure to check our website to see all of
our other great upcoming onsite events.
We hope to see you here soon.

(01:00:58):
I'm your host, Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky.

Leadership and Legacy (01:01:02):
Conversations at the George Washington Presidential
Library is a production of theMount Vernon Ladies' Association
and Primary Source Media.
In the spirit of George Washington'sleadership, we feature the perspectives of
leaders from across industries and fields.
As such, the thoughts expressed in thispodcast are solely the views of our
guests and do not reflect the opinionsof the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association.

(01:01:25):
To learn more about Washington'sleadership example, or to find out
how you can bring your team to theGeorge Washington Presidential Library,
visit GW leadership institute.org
Or to find more great podcastsfor Mount Vernon, visit
George Washington podcast.com.
You can also explore the work of PrimarySource Media at primarysourcemedia.com.

(01:01:46):
Join us in two weeks forour next great conversation.