tv Brookings Institution Discussion on International Security Defense Policy CSPAN December 19, 2019 6:49pm-8:00pm EST
c-span 2. >> sunday night, american history tv on c-span 3 looks back of the senate impeachment trial of president bill clinton. >> we are here today the president suffered a terrible moral lapse. marital infidelity. ot a breach of public trust. i recommend it to you before you vote. it was a breach of his marriage vows. breach of his family trust. it is a sex scandal. >> explore our nation's past, watch the clinton impeachment rial sunday night on c-span.
>> a discussion about defense policy and international security with the first woman in u.s. history to lead the lieutenant general lori robinson. this is just over an hour. >> welcome on to brookings institute. i welcome general lori robinson. she was a lieutenant colonel when she first came to brookings in 2001 and we spent a year with r and that is an jation to have the military fellows and created a friendship and a fan club here at brookings that continued over the years. you know her story and will talk about her story before we get
into her observations on strategic issues and then have time for your thoughts and questions as well and i'm happy this is happening during christmas season. i feel like i have gotten my christmas wish in welcoming lori robinson back. and crmpspap. it's a wonderful life and may version. the jimmy she was a from an air force family. went to the university of new ampshire but air force rotc. she looks about 35, she is a couple of years older and was commissioned an officer and became what's called an air battle manager, the person
hotels the f-15 pilots where they can go, so to speak and she ranks and ough the the school which is the real top gun school. if you are looking for the real sort of tom cruise and demi moore, this is the real thing until terms of the first one to do that as well as other accomplishments throughout her career. and she was one of the very few half dozen women in the u.s. women history to attain the rank of four-star general which happened in 2014 and had her first position with that rank as the air component commander and wing usly been advise
commander and had a lot of commander experience in the broader iraq, and afghanistan theater and seen a lot of the world and on top of that, she finished her military career as the first women in american history where she commanded from 2016 to 2019. that period is when kim jong un was launching his tests and they had no become such good buddies and there was tension in the relationship and she was the one in protecting the country. on top of that, she had to manage the military assistance to broader civilian as the three big hurricanes hit in 2017 as
well. and so, we are going to talk more about her career. .lease welcome general lori [applause] >> he is way too generous. >> i tried to comply men temporary. i will not try to call you lori, because you deserve the title of general robinson. and i want to bring you back to the early days and start describe a little bit of how it was first to zrine the military s a woman and early years of working your years up through the ranks and what were the big
challenges and what were some of your insights or personal methods of dealing with that culture? >> michael is right. my dad was in the air force. i'm the oldest five. and my dad sitting looking at the fact he was going to pay for college for five kids. he said why don't you go to the air force academy. and i said absolutely not. he said where would you like to go to college? >> i said the university of texas. i'm paying and you are going to the university of new hampshire. so but the first year i was happy to being out of home. my grades might have suffered. i decided to become an english
major. what am i go go to do with this. i joined the rmpomptmpcrmp and four years will be good. air battle manager. the guy in charge said talk to your father, you need to get out of this. to ot going to ask my dad do anything, i'm in it for myself. i had the privilege to be part of an initial quad dron at the v fighter weapons' school and i was the first female instructor there. but i will tell you, when you ask somebody about what molds you, that is one of the places that molded me and being part of the team because you you would rief with the pilots and debrief with the pilots. and the biggest lesson i learned
there. we had a possible and our boss was awesome. and he said to us, you realize you are something part of something bigger than yourself. thought what is he talking about? it wasn't about me but about the institution. that place, that time really molded me and my husband is setting up here and he was at the air force base and he flew for the thunder delip birds and y husband is a retired lieutenant general and second female general and wrote the sill bus for her discipline of intelligence. i would tell you as a woman there, i fought because it wasn't being a woman but getting
the task done and being confident and being the best. when you talk into a room ap a you become self-aware of that. what i realized in that community and all fighter pilots is what they cared about is you being good at what you did. that is what was important. from that, i would tell you, in you went through my career and air we call the combat forces. i flew on the back of joint stars, it was under standing, it isn't about you or the stution. and the more you can teach people ta work with you and work for you to be better than you when you leave the institution, you left it better than when you
got there. y first flying unit and my career field at the time was one of those career fields is one of , se we say, ate their young and so over my career, i tried very hard to teach. i would always say to my ubordinate commanders, as long it is not illegal, or unethical, let's learn from it. and understanding about the team effort and understanding that you are part of something bigger an yourself was -- made me a different human being. as i increased in rank. two star in qatar and four star in the pacific and out in colorado, the notion that i was
a woman and i am -- [laughter] >> that would be the headlines that people would say. and my and my headline was this. woman.happened to be a if i make the woman more important than those other things, i've done disrespect to the institution. i do realize i have done things other women haven't. i realize the first ever female combatant commander and i recognize that and i have a lot of people watching what i do. and i take that on, too. but i don't want the woman to be the headline. i want the commander to be the headline. i just tried to be a team player, to be the best at any job anybody ever gave me, and to
make those around me better than me. >> did it get easier or harder, ranks,rose through the being a woman? did it become more natural for them to think of you as all the things you said? or did it, in some ways, become harder? i'm curious. >> i said to michael, be nice. [laughter] here's what i discovered. in my circle, in the air force, and with the friends that i grew up with, it was a nonevent. it was rambunctious lori. that lori is doing what lori does. and for them, in fact, i had very dear friends i was a four-star with and a three star with and a two star with, and so for them, it didn't matter.
-- and thisesting isn't meant negatively -- it was interesting with the group ash other services because there weren't many other general officers. i tried harder because in my circle, everybody knew me. they knew what i was capable of. i put extra energy into -- an example is qatar. thereinto their as a -- as a commander. i didn't know general mattis at all. now i'm working for general goldstein. : general goldstein is not there, general mattis is there. i worked extra hard to quickly build the trust. i never ever felt that people
didn't trust me, but i wanted to earn that very quickly just because i was different. i'll tell you a story. i went to china and met the chinese air chief. and -- i was a four-star. again, it was a different culture. how do you build that trust as quickly as you can? i'm here as the commander of pacific air forces. again, i just happened to be a woman. so, because of his different and in different services and countries, i put a lot of pressure on myself to make sure i kept everything on an even playing field and i'm here to do a job. michael: as air battle manager, i'd like to explore what that means for the crowd on television and here watching and learning about the military. you were involved not only in
the air to air element, but the air to ground element. you and your colleagues were mapping the entire orchestration, the entire choreography of a concerted effort that involved electronic air forward craft, ground attack aircraft, the whole enchilada, is that right? gen. robinson: that's right. this crowd looks old enough to give you my first analogy. "top gun." that's the second weapons school. if you remember at the end of "top gun", the round scope, he's talking to maverick. anybody? can i get a couple nods? ok, good. that's what i did. the fighter pilots on the radio, one to tell them where the bad guys were. two, to help them drop the bombs to put on target, they had a pass to go do that.
-- path to go do that. about therried orchestration of tankers to ensure the commander's objectives were met, so whatever was asked of us, we knew what we had to do to ensure those objectives were met. often because i deployed to , our missions would be anywhere from 12-20 hours long. you learned a battle rhythm there. michael: again, as recent as your session to the air force has been, as young as you still are, you still seen a lot, because when you joined the air force, we were just operating our first stealth aircraft and cruise missiles were a new thing. we hadn't yet seen the laserguided bombs of operation desert storm.
desert storm was only 10% smart bombs. now we're at an air force where those percentages have reversed, or even more, where we have a large number of stealth aircraft, where we have bombs,ided bombs, gps and we also understand the limitations of things because you need to know where the target is. warfare,ing insurgency we've seen the limitations. we've got unmanned aerial systems out there. en the wondered what's be most striking change in air combat? gen. robinson: that's a great question. the thing that i've been amazed about, if you look at desert steel -- desert shield and desert storm, we haven't left. you look at the way we thought and desert storm, how do we
de-conflict everybody's forces to make sure you get to the target? versus if you look at now, we work very hard on integration. try to make sure, whatever capability we need, we can integrate it into the total force? and where do we use drones? how do we use non-kinetics? all of that. i think the joint fight has grown tremendously. and i think, to me, in a warfare scenario, it's the joint fight that has really taken shape. that's been so beneficial. when you can go overseas and you work with your joint brothers and sisters and you see them someplace else, you know each other. it's not like walking into a building and who's that? when it starts there, now you've
been to the desert together, afghanistan, iraq, wherever, but you've got this common background. and i think, as i watched that over time, i think it's been a very positive thing for not just warfare, but the department of defense. michael: we will talk about the applications of these and the security environment and what you've been dealing with, but i did want to come back to the question of the state of the military and gender integration and diversity. i guess i'm going to ask you two questions, one about whether the glass is half-full or half-empty. regardless, i'm sure there is more you can suggest the military do to improve. you're one of a half-dozen women who have reached the rank of four-star, which is great, but there aren't that many in the
pipeline and we may not have another woman four-star after general miller today, still in service. this may be a blip, at least for a while. then it's about 15% of military , whichel that is women is more than there used to be, but still far from 50%. i'm not sure if 50% is the goal. i see mistreatment and abuse of women. i don't want to take on the armed forces, specifically, but i see those trends that cause a lot of concern. in light of your own story and what you see in the armed forces, is the glass half-full or half-empty? and then after we talk about that, i'd love to hear of couple of your suggestions. i think the glass
is at half. here's the positive things. they opened up all the jobs you can do in the military women. the military is a meritocracy. , the lieutenant, raise your right hand. from that perspective, that's why it's half. when you look at a sessions, we're doing a great job of assessing women. i think the hard part comes time when people are thinking about families. i think the hard part is, and '' ll tell my story about that, my husband was a thunderbird pilot. we were leaving nellis and we had gone to hawaii -- bummer. [laughter] and it was time for us to move. and they were going to send him to korea and me to okinawa,
japan. and, of course, he had gotten promoted early. he made rank early. he was a fighter pilot. and i'm an air battle manager. i was never going to be more than a kernel if i was lucky. he was going to be a general officer. i said david, why don't i get out and you stay in? i'll follow you around and we'll do that. we didn't want kids. he looked at me, as sweet as he could, and he said what is it that you would do if you got out? i said, well, i don't know. he said ok, you stay in, and i'll go fly for the airlines and go into the reserves. so, when it comes a time to make those decisions, that's the hard part. it doesn't have to be military married to military. they can be two people that both have jobs, and how do you
orchestrate all that? and so i would say it's at half. i think we do a good job of assessing. the hard part is keeping the women in. i haven't touched base on this. i know people are looking -- working hard on that. one of the things i would always get young ladies, -- talking to me, how do you do it? you have to have the hard conversation about whose career comes first. whenever you don't have pressure on you. because the second you have pressure, it becomes an emotional decision and not a rational decision. and have that constantly. have it every now and then. and then decide how long can you be a part? how far are you willing to live apart? what is it the long terms goals are? but do it rationally when there's no pressure.
so now, david and i didn't do that. that was a lesson learned for me. all, thatk, first of has to be a family decision. it has to be something that is talked about. because sometimes maybe it's the woman's career that has more potential than the man's. but just have that conversation. and then i know the services are working hard. i just saw in the ndaa, they extended paternity leave. so that's a good thing. the services are working hard on, how do we make it so that we can keep women in? we talk about women, but i want to say it's about diversity. it's not just about women. it's about how do you keep different talents sitting around the table? how do you ensure you have people of different genders, different races, different
backgrounds, different experiences, so when you're at the head of the table, you've got a whole bunch of different voices sitting there? we can talk about me as a woman, but i think the bigger story is how do we keep a diverse table? because i think that makes you a better commander. that makes you a better decision-maker when you have all those different voices telling you things that you probably hadn't even thought of or didn't even know. michael: i was thinking about dave's comment, what kind of civilian jobs could you do after being an air battle manager? i guess offensive coordinator for a football team. [laughter] but that would probably be even more of a breakthrough than to stay in the military. so i wondered, when you're talking about the child raising years, should the military do more to let people leave for five or 10 years and come back at rank and still have a future? i know there have been some
efforts, but i think specialized niche is. have beenson: there some efforts and there's a program out there. i don't want to speak or misspeak, but i know they are looking at that, too. haveo we insure that we senior leaders diversity at the top? how do we make that path to do that? and so i know there's programs they have implemented, that are very finite, but i don't know reasonably what other things they've done. michael: it's a tough subject, but back to the point of sexual abuse within the military. i sometimes wondered, as father of daughters, how would i feel about my daughters joining the military and frankly, i can't decide. ma's me nervous to see these reports. the fact there is transparency is good, but the numbers are moving in the wrong direction.
idea of howan prevalent sexual mistreatment is and whether they are getting focused enough on doing what they must to address the problem? gen. robinson: i would say, if you recall when general welsh had his hearing to become the chief of staff and we had just had the big problem down at the air force base, he took a very focused effort on sexual assault , sexual harassment, mistreatment, not treating people with dignity and respect in the workplace. we had a bright, shining light on that. and we've had a lot of programs that are out there. i think there's a couple things that are important. in some ways, i can tell you than inally different the 1980's when i was at the air force base. totally different. there's been a lot of progress made.
i'd also tell you the commander sets the tone. the commander is the one that sets the tone about, will not tolerate. i can tell you day one when i would have sit -- subordinate commanders. that was one of the topics i talked about. i think it's gotten better, but i think we still have a ways to go. dealw that we continue to know we've got some wonderful programs in place. how do i want to say this? hardt's just -- it's a problem. you have to create the it's notnt that on e, tolerated. and two, if something happens, somebody comes to tell you. in three, whatever happens after
something happens, make sure it's done transparently, too. michael: one last question on the people of the military and then i will ask about china and i will let others share the joy and privilege of speaking with you. i wanted to get your overall sense about the military in society today. we know a lot is asked of a small number of people. the active-duty is less than one half of 1% of the population. even if you add in the reservist, and your husband did a great honor their, and the civilian dod employees, still less than 1% of the population. i'm not suggesting it should be 5% or 10%, but because it's a small fraction, fewer people have direct contact with the military. is that a problem? do you have any ideas what we can do about it? are we seeing a greater distance between the military and a society the military exists to
protect? gen. robinson: i don't consider it a problem. i just considered we should understand that. i just retired and my husband and i moved into a neighborhood that has no military. we're in a place that we've never lived before. i stumble upon things and we live near a military base, but we're further away from it. what i realizes, when you tell somebody you're in the military -- and between my husband and i, we have 73 years of service -- when you tell somebody, the first thing they say is thank you for your service. and then they ask what you did. what i realized is that percentage is small, but i think that in the big scheme of things, people are grateful for what the military does for this nation. i will tell you this. i've had the privilege the last year and a half to speak to a
few civilian corporations and their leadership venues, and i always start out with, for 37 years, i supported the constitution of the united states. people sit there for a minute. it's not that it doesn't resonate with them. they just haven't seen somebody stand up and do that. then i talk whatever i'm going to talk, and then i tell them i was honored to serve for 37 years to defend the united states, to do what i did, so that they could do what they do because our nation needs them to do what they do. and so to me, all we have to do is continue to talk about it and not be shy. but the other thing i've been really mesmerized by, michael, towns embraceand our warriors that are coming home. and to me, that's awesome.
i watch people be so proud, went to new hampshire this fall -- david and i did -- and i did a veterans day event. thatt was amazing to watch little town in new hampshire embrace all those veterans and say thank you to them. so i think there's obviously pockets. just understand it. and to me, do outreach that you can, and just do what you do because the nation needs us to do that. michael: thank you. that's a great answer. if i could ask you about china, i want to go back to your next-to-last job in the military. and of course, we talk a lot about the south china sea and naval operations and boats, but you also had to think about
airspace and what china was doing by way of trying to keep people out of certain air defense identification zone issues, trying to declare these spaces where any other country would have to other china, sort of indirectly asked permission to use international airspace. how do you see the overall situation? is it getting worse? do you think we stabilize the situation and china is not going to encroach further? do you think we're on a potentially delicate place where things could get worse? what did you have to do to contend with this challenge? you robinson: i'll tell about my experience and a couple things about where we are now. i took command in hawaii and admiral locke clear was the commander -- locklear was the commander. he presided over the change of command. he said thiseech,
is a huge area of response ability. 52% of the vote is in that area. of that 52% is water. but 100% of that is air. and i remind everybody of that. and i always quote admiral locke clear -- locklear. i didn't say that. he said that. first of all, logistically, to move things around the area is very difficult. it's a long ways. just to get of hawaii to go anywhere, it takes you six hours. if you want to go to the west coast or to guam, it's nine hours or so to go to japan. concern, the way i thought about it, was very small. if you think about the
relationship between china, russia, north and south korea, and japan, it's small. but moving stuff around is difficult. one of the things i had to deal with his folks flying. we would fly around all of that stuff just as the ships did their freedom of navigation. do making sure we didn't anything silly or get inside of places that we shouldn't go. i mentioned before and that with the chinese air chief and one of the things he talked about all our surveillance were in places they shouldn't be . they are in international waters. it's ok for them to be there. one of the things we worked on really hard was how do you act in international airspace when you're going to intercept somebody? who does what? i had a whole bunch of folks
working with the chinese, as well as people at the pentagon, and we worked our way through that. i think that was very helpful. i think the thing, as i watched beinge, i watched china defensive in nature, worrying about the mainland, versus continuing to move out and do more stuff further out and then begin joint operations. i know they continued to work on some of that stuff. they continued to defend some of those islands. it was difficult to watch. the thing we have to think about, they're in this for the long game. we need to understand that, that this is something that they're just going to continue to work on over and over again. michael: does your gut tell you we can work it out with china? if we are smart and resolute and
the things you're saying you'll be challenging over the long haul, that we should reach a new modus operandi where china becomes another superpower and, wants to flex its muscle that we can push back with our allies in ways that their more dangerous ambitions are curbed? or a worsening rivalry is most inevitable? gen. robinson: i don't want to get into the diplomat's role. as secretary mattis used to tell us, let the state department do what state department does, and let diplomats do what diplomats to, and make sure we provide military capability to them. not being in those talks, i'd be speculating and that wouldn't be fair, but what we do is to make sure whenever we're asked to do, we're ready to go. michael: so your agnostic? gen. robinson: very.
michael: i think it's important we keep having this debate on china. one last question for me and then i will invite others the way in. won't be question you able to completely answer because one, no one knows the answer, and two, some of what you know is classified. it's about the potential missile threat to the united states. that was your job to think about and worry about and potentially address back in 2016-2018. i'm going to throw this out and see if you want to take pot shots at what i propose. my own view is that north korea is probably not yet in a place where they can mount a confident icbm threat to north america for the following reasons. they would presumably not do this out of the blue. if it's a crisis or wartime situation, we're probably going to do our best to make sure the missile is not even launched.
they're long-range to rockets are liquid fuels. we have a good chance of saying that before the process is complete. second, even if they launch it, they haven't done enough tests to really know how well the reentry technology is going to work it could go to the wrong place or the warhead could fail on dissent. three, we do have the midcourt interception system, that you would have been responsible for operating. i think you shared some of the response abilities, but the overall approach was ultimately yours. and those systems, while not overct, have done better the years. they would have to get the missile off the launch pad, having it work and none of them have really tested warheads on the way down. and finally, get through the
midcourt interoceptive systems. i would think the odds are with us and it's pretty high north korea probably can't attack an american city today with any high confidence of success. but i would love to see if you have any comment to the extent you're willing. gen. robinson: no. [laughter] gen. robinson: just kidding. so, let me just say this. for about this didn'that kim jong-il -- that kim jong-un did 27 shots, in 2017i had to make the assumption it was going to hit the united states. i couldn't assume he wasn't going to make it. secondly, i testified to this, that i had confidence in our
capability to defend the united states. thirdly, what i would say, is every time he tests, he's testing. and we get concerned about failure and you can often learn more in failure than you can in success. and so as i've been watching in the news, and in my time there, being a part of a very elaborate , we watchedyou know him get better. we watched him be able to do things. -- i cant give you tell you this. first of all, the training that happens to defend the homeland is awesome. the things that we did to make sure the homeland was defended throughout, you know, the network of give abilities was constantly being looked at -- of capabilities was causally being looked at.
we assumed it was going to hit we think everyd time he tests he's gaining capability. michael: thank you. please wait for a microphone, identify yourself, and we will start with john robinson. >> thank you very much. i just want to follow up on the north korean question michael just asked. we are seeing threats north korea is going to give a christmas present to the united states. i was wondering what comments you have on that. and i was wondering, since you were there in the military 2016-2018, every going to return to the fire and fury again? all, i'mnson: first of not going to comment on that because i'm not in there anymore. i'm not in the military. i got lost in your fire and fury. go to the first part again.
i'm sorry. >> [inaudible] gen. robinson: yeah, i don't know. i've read in the news a little bit. i know that the pacific air force commander was just here and we were listening to the president say they were watching. i think everyone is paying attention to what happening. i have all the faith and confidence that whatever happens, we will be able to defend the united states. i just know what we see in the news. michael: we go to the gentleman in the black jacket in the fourth row. right there. >> thank you. thank you for fascinating remarks. that theon is university center of sydney report, and they concluded that china's capability, particularly
the denial of capabilities, have developed to the extent it undermines u.s. ability to protect our in the indo pacific. what is your view on the back and forth? gen. robinson: so, i would say this. last i was in the pacific and we practiced, we talked about this, so my information is dated, so please forgive me for that. but i think that we continue to look at our ability to project power in the time and place of our choosing. and i think that, as much as they're watching us, we're watching them and we're looking at capabilities to continue to do that. michael: second row, gentlemen in the greenish, almost christmas tie. gen. robinson: i like the candy canes. >> i was a 9/11 responder. this is a follow-up to a question i asked general doug
for during the summer. you mentioned transparency. as a 9/11 responder, i point to turuth.org, anomalies. especially with your background from the air force, can brookings be a venue for exploring anomalies and what happened on 9/11 as we approach the 20 anniversary so we can really achieve transparency regarding what happened that day? gen. robinson: i'm never going to speak for brookings, and i would ask michael to comment on this, but the amount of capacity and my experience, i had the privilege to stop and think. you don't get that privilege very often. what i was memorizing -- mesmerized about my time here was the wide variety of capability.
i would ask michael to specifically go there. anyplace you can sit and think and explore is awesome. michael: i would just say briefly that the best people on terrorism at brookings, and counterterrorism, include roose radel, dan byman, susan hennessey, a few other scholars. you might look for their writings in the future. tom in the far row. >> my name is tom. michael: -- gen. robinson: are you having fun? >> yeah. gen. robinson: excellent. >> building off an earlier comment you made, they published -- one of the central tenets of wish is this idea of competition below the threshold of armed conflict. and the idea that mixes departure from the past is this
idea of joint and intergovernmental cooperation. my question is, what do you believe either the army or inner government partners need to do to achieve the policy goals of the events set forth to achieve our ends? gen. robinson: great, thank you. obviously, that's a politics question. but what i would say is these are the kind of things that any military member going through brookings should take advantage of to build relationships. because at the end of the day, it is about relationships. to the extent some of the courses you have the privilege to take while you're here and i'm sure you have brothers and sisters at the state department and other places. build those relationships. and it's those relationships that when you need them, it will come out. the thing that i've recognized, we all think differently, right?
people, here are the ways we are going to call. make a decision. not everybody thinks like that. there's no judgment there, but it's relationships that help to sit down to talk about it. what i would tell you is when you work through that and global integration, you need interagency as a part of all that, that you would be able to reach out and build a relationship. and have somebody to talk to to help you think through the way other people might be thinking through it. there's forums where we have all of us together when it comes ,ime for big decision-making but it's as important you reach out yourself. i had five tours in the building on wast i realized early
that the importance of not burning any bridges. because if i had come back to the fifth tour and i was working with the same people on the second or third tour and i wasn't a team player, doesn't mean i acquiesced, but there's ways to talk about things, that it would have been a difficult fit for. and so to me, that relationship. you're here at a place where you have time to do that. do that and take advantage of that. reach out to the other fellows at the places where they are. you never know what you learn in five years. michael: slightly broader point to me, i want to give a shout out to the armed forces for the way they take professional education seriously. it's something i continue to be astounded by. the military can take a year out of their normal progression for their normal responsibilities. whether you consider it a luxury
or necessity, i think it's more the latter because it gives the lori robinson's and jim mattis's and tom burke's the ability to learn about, where is china headed? 10 years down the road, in a position of command at the crisis, and i want to figure out is this a crisis where we need to ratchet up or ratchet down or find a diplomatic way out, and the military advice is going to be crucial as the future president decides what to do. it's the ability to think back andistory and on philosophy governmental dynamics and how decisions are made in a bureaucracy, and all the sophistication, in addition to the technical military expertise. that makes our leadership. so exceptional. as i've gotten knowing theseof americans over the years, to see what they have done is something
we have to sustain in the armed forces. it's not just we're lucky when they come to brookings, but in general across the armed forces as people want to higher rank and joint surface. -- service. here in the front row and then over there to the thorough. -- the third row. >> if you were to look -- michael: identify yourself, please. >> chris. -- we hear thingsre like google can do 10,000 seconds of analysis and 10 seconds, it's hard to understand where all of this is going and it would be nice to have a positive scenario. gen. robinson: hasn't everything
been positive today? excuse me. so, what i would say, and i can only speak for the air force, i think people are trying to look, what do we think is going to look like in 2025-2030, and what capabilities do we have today? and what do we need to work on to do that? you heard talk about the document on joint welfare. -- warfare. how do we envision we are going to work together to defend the nation or do what they ask us to do? i don't think there is one big thing, but there's a lot of things people are working on to go this is the way it's going to be based on what we know at their. -- the way things are at their, how do we go faster? you look at google or microsoft,
i'm always impressed at how quick they have new capability. how can we do that in the military to ensure that we can do the things that the nation asks us to do? michael: here in the third row, please. >> thank you. thank you for being here. i wanted to ask you the space force question now that you're out of uniform and all but one of the bills essentially has been passed to allow it to happen next year. can you talk how the space force, you anticipate, adding northcom the leadership role you have, and you regret your not in the military right now? gen. robinson: can i answer the second question? >> thank you. gen. robinson: my pleasure. so, not having been involved in the dialogue -- and again, i don't want to say something i don't know anything about -- i
wasn't involved because i wasn't involved in a joint job. general raymond, when we made him in charge, that was the best pick our nation could do. what i would tell you is, watching him do his job, i know he's going to do the best he can as he tries to shape all this and how does he integrate that and what do we do with that? i don't know enough specifics to give you an intellectual answer. and no, i'm very happy to be retired. time.- 37 years is a long i tell people this, though. i enjoy every single second of it. i was so blessed with great mentors, great friends, great jobs, people that believed in me independent of what i did for a living, and put me in places because they saw potential. better.imagine anything
but i'm happy to be retired. the one thing i miss is the people. i miss the people. michael: my friend here in the white sweater. robinson, thank you very much for a very good presentation. michael: please introduce yourself, even though i know you. >> i'm elliott hurwitz. i worked in the state department during the prevalence of that -- rentable. -- principal. i would like to have your comments on the diversion of fromology development government sources to corporate what the indications are internationally.
gen. robinson: let me see if i understand your question. i'll use an air force example. lucky martin makes a lot of our airplanes. since they do that, what is the implications of that and what does that do to us, internationally? >> that's correct. technology development was a round of governments. gen. robinson: so what i would say, one, we haven't finished in the military. we still do research and development. we have a lot of that still going on. when i was a young one in the airplanes,e had four four or five different companies that made airplanes. that is not new news. what's interesting about it, especially if you look at the f-35 and the countries that participated in the beginning of that and the ability for us to
be inoperable around the world because we understand each other, it's the same with the f-16. we have f-16s around the world. however ability to work together, it increases that capability. and we know the capability of all those other airplanes. , it'sk in a positive vein good. we've got someone focused on building stuff. we have r&d and we can work together with industry. two, the fact that we can deploy it around the world helps us in the long haul. defend theto go nation, we aren't going to do it by ourselves. to the extent that we can start with interoperability at the beginning with light capabilities is very helpful. michael: we have time for one or two more questions.
my good friend from the japanese air force is here. >> thank you. i fly out of okinawa, japan. gen. robinson: yay. >> thank you. -- we developed women fighter pilots. my question is regarding emerging technologies, ai's. i want to ask your comment regarding the ai to air battle management. thank you. gen. robinson: first of all, when i was that a commander in the pacific, my good friend saito-san, my husband and i had
an opportunity to spend a lot of time with him. i just him a couple months ago here in washington, d.c. he's a wonderful person and i enjoyed working with him. so, ai and air battle management. me about theo show capability of ai to make a decision. -- andthe things obviously it's supposed to be a learning machine. the more you work, the more it learns. when you're sitting up there, there are times that the situation isn't exactly what we thought it was going to be. and so the human interface to that machine, and the human voice to whatever's happening out there, is very time critical, time sensitive. do i ever think is not going to happen? no.
as we watch ai develop and progress, the way we're moving forward, i can see it. anytime soon? probably not. what's important, and ever chief of staff was talking about it, is the connectivity between the force. i think that's where we need to get to and work on that as we continue to develop and understand all the capabilities of ai. michael: a little advanced advertisement for my good friend's book, he's working on ai and warfare, a book we're hoping will come out in the next year or so. he's going to try to put it in perspective and slightly deflate the hyperbole around ai without pooh-poohing the future, but nonetheless recognizing it's not the be-all and end-all of everything. gentlemen here in the fourth row. just time for one or two more and we'll wrap up.
>> good morning. i'm alexander from alaska. we haven't talked about the arctic in alaska and that was the big focus for you. right now we're working with general shaughnessy and what the future of northcom is going to be an early morning. i'm curious what your perspective is on how much we should be focusing on the arctic, how much integrating with not just canada, and how much we should be focused on either a northcom issue, or a you come issue. that's something we're dealing with right now. gen. robinson: please tell the senator i said hello. i have huge respect for her. when i testified for my confirmation hearing, i think it was senator sullivan who put the map down in front of general scott perotti and i, said you have to fix this problem. i would tell you a couple of things.
i know in my time and i'm sure general o'shaughnessy has taken it leaps and bounds. we worked hard on it to make sure there was no seams between us and the talking between all of us was consistent and the things we thought needed to be denver consistent. -- to be done were consistent. it's not just a canada problem, it's a canada and alaska problem. it's a north american problem. when i think of things northcom was doing, as we were getting ready to do more exercises, and we look -- i know my first summer, the first time we had a cruise ship go through in the summer, that opened everybody's eyes. i think we have to be sensitive to it and we have to understand what's going on. what are the russians doing? what are the chinese doing? what is our capability? and what can we invest to make sure we detect and take care of
things in ranges we might need to? that's kind of the dew line and rebuilding some of that. i'm sure general o'shaughnessy has gone leaps and bounds in front of me. i think we do have to pay attention and understand the environment. one of the things i used to say all the time, we've had our feet in the sand for years and years, and now we need to start thinking about putting erato in the snow. -- our toe in the s now. but i knoward, general o'shaughnessy is really working hard on all of that, too, and i know the collaboration between you, and northcom is tight, just knowing the individuals that are involved. dohael: let's see if we can one last question. and we have just one more. gen. robinson: yay. >> kevin.
i have two questions. gen. robinson: he said just one. [laughter] gen. robinson: i'm teasing. i'm teasing. >> a few months ago, russians tested their new hypersonic weapon. as far as i know, u.s. has no similar hypersonic weapons, or similar capability. andians did not do terrible not intercept of for norad. to have someou comment on it. weather is intercept of all double --ntercept interceptable at all, or if you
have capability to intercept it it?lter -- or to deter gen. robinson: as i was leaving the department, this was a hot topic. they were working to understand what they saw in russia and what they perceive the capabilities would be, and what can we do to defend the united states? i don't have fidelity data on that, but i know that is something people are paying attention to and making sure we continue to work on defending the united states. is worth noting a lot of hypersonic weaponry becomes maneuverable in the terminal phase as it reenters the atmosphere. so, some kinds of hypersonic's could be addressed through a midcourse system like the one we have now. you're right. that's part of why the missile defense agency has a budget for developing new technology. in closing, let me just say
briefly, it's the end of the year so i'm nostalgic and i want to reflect on the amazing women we've been blessed to know at brookings. i'm going to finish with lori and ask you to join me in thanking her. but first, maybe greatest of all, we lost this year after an amazing life and career, 888, she came back after a long-standing career, fixed d.c.'s financing during the last 16 year stint, with help from some others. just one of the greatest of all time. had also been a pioneer. and then of course, a woman still very much with us that we're all very proud of these days, fiona hill. i just recently ordered my fiona hill t-shirts. there is not an action figure yet that i'm aware of, hopefully soon.
join me inease thanking general lori robinson. [applause] i hope everybody has a wonderful holiday season. thank you for your thoughts. i appreciate it. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ladies and gentlemen, start your engines. eventwas kind of the big that started this place of in terms of worldwide fame. people know indianapolis because of racing and with a healthy sport and a healthy track, i don't think that will change. >> he was one of the most famous
authors to come out of indiana up until kurt vonnegut. and i always describe him as helping to define to the rest of the country what a hoosier was. he helped introduce indiana to the rest of the country. indiana loved him for that. >> c-span cities tour is on the road exploring the american story. we take you to indianapolis, with the help of our spectrum cable partners. this saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's book tv, local authors on the city's, history including, a speech robert kennedy made following the death of martin luther king. >> martin luther king dedicated his life. >> kennedy had no prepared text from his campaign speechwriters. and there was kind of a, what am i going to say? kennedy was somebody who could speak to people directly and give them bad news and be
counted upon to do the right thing. so it was decided that kennedy would come to 17th and broadway streets to address the crowd that gathered there. p.m. onunday at 2:00 c-span3, we'll visit different historic sites around town, including the home of president benjamin harrison. >> the great sense that you have as he walked through the space is how understated it is. it's not ostentation's. it speaks deeply of quality. i think that's harrison's character through and through, understated, but of quality. >> watches c-span cities tour of indianapolis as we take on is history and literary scene, working with our cable affiliates as we explore america's story. sunday night on q&a, wall
street trader turned photojournalist chris are ,"ughty on his book, "dignity about the plight of those living on the fringes of society in america. >> it was empty because all the semi's were gone and she was in the industrial part of hunts point. and immediately, her intelligence kind of came right through. and we spoke for about an hour, half an hour or so. she told me her life, which is just, inner, almost -- you know, almost like a cliche of anything -- everything that can happen to somebody. i asked everybody for a photograph. what's one sentence to describe you? t's what i am, ai prostitute and child of god. >>