>> How to live the hero code this week on "Firing Line."

>> Changing the world can happen anywhere and anyone can do it.

>> A four-star admiral who rose to command U.S. Special Operations, William McRaven is a real-life American hero who oversaw the raid that took out Osama bin Laden.

>> A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability.

>> Admiral McRaven didn't hesitate to take on President Trump publicly... >> I think Trump forgets that we are a nation of values.

>> ...and faced incoming fire in return.

>> Frankly -- >> He was a Navy S.E.A.L.

>> Wouldn't it have been nice if we got Osama bin Laden a lot sooner than that?

>> With a new administration in the White House, a new hard-line leader in Iran, and the withdrawal from Afghanistan underway, what does Admiral McRaven say now?

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by... ...and by... Corporate funding is provided by... >> Admiral William McRaven, welcome to "Firing Line," and thank you for your service.

>> Oh, thanks, Margaret.

Good to be with you.

>> Your latest book, "The Hero Code: Lessons Learned from Lives Well Lived," lists 10 key virtues to strive for.

You use several remarkable real-life examples from your 37 years as a Navy S.E.A.L.

leading some of America's most high-stakes operations.

But you dedicate the book to essential workers, doctors, delivery men and women, teachers, police officers.

Why was it so important for you to recognize those heroes at the outset?

>> Well, first, let me say that I actually love the textbook definition of a hero, and the textbook definition says that it's people that we admire for their noble qualities, their noble qualities.

And I wrote the book during 2020, so for me, it was easy to be inspired by the noble qualities that I saw in these doctors, these police, these teachers, these delivery people that were out there fighting the COVID virus.

They are the heroes of 2020 and 2021.

>> Drawing on your 37 years of background in the military, how do you see this moment in our country's war against coronavirus?

>> I would offer that we are winning the fight against COVID-19, but we have not won.

So I think we need to be on guard.

We need to recognize that there are a number of variants out there, and it is a little bit like the the global war on terrorism in that this could be a continuous fight.

>> As we approach the 20th anniversary of September 11th, Admiral McRaven, President Biden has set the deadline for full withdrawal for the remaining U.S. troops in Afghanistan for September 11th.

Are U.S.-trained Afghan forces ready?

>> Well, let's hope they're ready.

You know, we've trained about 350,000 Afghan forces over the course of the last -- primarily the last 10, 12 years.

And I will tell you, I've seen them in action, and a lot like other units in other nations, some of them are better than others.

So we are certainly hopeful that the Afghan forces will be able to withstand what is clearly going to be an onslaught by the Taliban.

So I think as we look at departing Afghanistan, there are a lot of risks.

Make no mistake about it.

The progress that we have made over the last 20 years could be and I say could be in jeopardy if the Afghans don't stand up.

I mean, the progress with women's rights and all the sorts of things that we built over the last 20 years I think are in jeopardy, if, in fact, the Taliban have a resurgence and come back after the central government.

My recommendation to the Biden administration would be you still need to keep a small footprint of U.S. soldiers and/or contractors in Afghanistan to make sure that we can keep the intelligence picture clear, that we're in a position to be able to support the Afghan National Security Forces with potentially close air support and other combat-related support if they need it.

>> Do you think the Biden administration understands that recommendation of yours?

>> Yeah, absolutely.

I mean, I've had conversations with senior military leaders in the inner circle.

They have had an opportunity to talk directly to the President and ensure that the President understands the risks, as well as understanding what we can do as a military to be able to mitigate those risks.

>> There are concerns now about new al-Qaeda safe havens.

There are reports the Taliban is taking back more territory day by day.

And the Afghan people are seeing the worst violence that they've seen there in the past two decades.

At what point are the risks too great?

>> Yeah, it's a great question.

I mean, the risks are too great when we don't have a sufficient force to be able to protect the Americans that may be there.

And therefore, we're going to need enough, you know, forces on the ground to be able to protect Americans wherever they might be.

>> Admiral, what is your opinion about the selection of the date for withdrawal, September 11th?

>> Yeah, well, I mean, obviously, there was some sense of closing this out on the anniversary, and I recognize that.

But the fact of the matter is, we are going to be out there long before September 11th.

I know the military forces are moving.

I think reports I've read have said most forces will be out potentially by the middle of July.

So I understand the significance, if you will, of making it September 11th.

But from the military standpoint, that's not going to drive an orderly departure.

You know, we're going to do things or the military is going to do things to ensure that the troops get out safely.

>> But from a communications standpoint, Representative Liz Cheney called this "a huge propaganda victory for the Taliban and for al-Qaeda."

Is that a fair characterization?

>> Well, I mean, the Taliban and al-Qaeda will make a propaganda victory out of anything.

I mean, I've seen in my years of fighting there, even when we decimated them on the battlefield, you know, they will spin it to their benefit.

So I don't think we can really worry about that.

That's a given.

The Taliban, al-Qaeda and others are going to try to make a propaganda victory out of this.

I don't know that there's anything we can do.

>> In the original incarnation of this program that was hosted by William F. Buckley Jr., Buckley led a discussion on the effects of the Iranian revolution.

And here is what General Alexander Haig had to say about the new government and what it could mean for the West.

Take a look at this clip.

>> I think regardless of the ultimate character of the outcome of the events which have spun so rapidly over the past weekend that the outcome will be extremely deleterious for the West and Western interests in general.

I say this not only in the context of the immediate concerns for the energy consequences, but perhaps more importantly, for the longtime stabilization role that Iran has played in the Gulf States.

>> Were those anticipated?

>> Well, no, I don't think so.

I think for whatever reason, the West has been rather insensitive to the evolution of events in Iran that brought about the outcomes we are experiencing now.

>> More than four decades later, Admiral, do you think the United States is sensitive enough to what's happening in Iran?

>> Yeah, I absolutely think they're sensitive enough.

I mean, you obviously have a new president in Ebrahim Raisi, a hard-liner, but you can see he is already -- I wouldn't say it's extending an olive branch, but he already recognizes that he's going to have to deal with the United States even if he doesn't want to deal personally with President Biden.

He's going to continue to come to the table in the negotiations for the JCPOA.

So I think we're going to have to see how this plays out.

You know, I know the Biden administration understands that, you know, we can't extricate ourselves from the Middle East totally.

We're going to continue to have great relationships or I should say relationships, diplomatic relationships with all of our allies within the region.

And we need to continue to do that.

But right now, of course, there is a shift in thinking and a shift in our national security strategy about China as the most serious competitor out there and Russia and other threats that are looming.

So, you know, we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

I think we're in a position to be able to deal with China in the Pacific and deal with China as a competitor, to deal with Russia and all of the prongs that Putin has put out, as well as maintaining a certain level within the Middle East to continue to keep our allies strong and to keep Iran at bay.

>> So what is the election of a hard-line president in Iran mean for the future of their nuclear weapons development and their desire to come to the bargaining table?

>> Yes, so it's all about the economy.

I mean, I think this is true of just about every country out there.

At the end of the day, the Iranian hard-liners understand that they have still got to get the economy moving or this more liberal movement, if you will, is going to potentially, you know, bump up against the hard-liners in a way that they won't be able to control.

So it is about the economy, and from the pre-- I would offer from the standpoint of the new president, he recognizes that if he can, in fact, broker a deal with the United States and our allies, as we're looking at the JCPOA, the nuclear agreement, then we will begin to lift some sanctions.

And hopefully we will do so in a thoughtful way that will bring more money into Iran and that will begin to mollify to some degree, the Iranians that are upset with the current regime in Iran.

So, you know, Iran is not looking for a fight.

We are not looking for a fight with Iran.

We're going to have to see how this new president plays out.

You know, sometimes you think that the hard-liners are going to be the hardest to negotiate with when in fact, they become a little bit more pliable over time.

So I think it remains to be seen with the new guy in power.

>> What is the most serious national security threat that President Biden will face in the next few years?

>> K through 12 education.

You know, I get asked that question a lot, and people always think I'm going to say, well, it's North Korea or it's Iran or it's Russia or it's China.

But I honestly believe it's K through 12 education.

A lot of times people don't think of education as a national security issue.

I would say it's the number-one national security issue because we've got to build the next generation of national security experts.

>> In the chapter that you write entitled "Duty," you share a pretty vivid recollection about a female airman who refused to allow you to pass her Afghan checkpoint.

At first you write that you were frustrated but ultimately ended up applauding her.

Why do you share that anecdote in your book?

>> Yeah.

Yeah, I call her Airman Jackson.

That is not her real name, and I never saw the woman again.

But it was a story that was important to me because it was it was pretty impactful to me.

And I was, as you said, scheduled to brief President Obama.

I got the request to come over and brief him at Bagram Air Base and there at the back gate is a young airman, a female airman who is guarding the gate.

And the first thing that happens is my sergeant, who's part of my security detail gets out and I can see him talking to this young airman.

He towers over the young airman, and he seems to be calm at first.

But then all of a sudden, you know, arms are waving.

He's pointing to the thing.

He's tapping on his watch, and he comes, he storms back to the car and he goes, "She won't let us in.

We don't have clearance."

Well, then my sergeant major, the senior enlisted that was with me at the time says, "Hey, sir, not a problem.

I got this."

So the sergeant major goes out, and kind of the same thing happens.

And of course, I thought, "Oh, look, boys, I'm a three-star admiral.

I got this."

So I get out of the car, I walk up to the airman, you know, look at her name tag.

And I said, "Airman Jackson," I said, "I'm Admiral McRaven.

I think the sergeant and sergeant major have told you, I've got a brief for the President of the United States in like five minutes.

So you kind of need to let us through.

I've got a job to do."

And she stops me dead in her tracks and she says, "Sir, I know you've got a job to do, but I've got a job to do as well.

And you're not on the list."

And about 10 minutes later, she gets the authorization and we go through.

I go and brief the President.

He never mentioned the fact that I was late.

But on my way back, we go back through the back gate.

I pull off to the side and I get out of the car and I go back up to Airman Jackson, and I can tell she's a little afraid.

I've got a little bit of a scowl on my face.

And I said, "Airman Jackson, do you know that I was 10 minutes late briefing the President of the United States?"

I reached into my pocket and I pulled out a command challenge coin, which is the coin given only to soldiers who do excellent work.

And I put it in her hand.

I said, "You did exactly what you should have done."

And then she said to me, "Sir, I was just doing my duty."

And that really resonated with me.

>> Well, in the context of duty, it strikes me you wrote an open letter to President Trump asking him to revoke your security clearance after he revoked former CIA Director John Brennan's security clearance.

And I wonder how you think about duty in the context of speaking out in politics?

>> Yeah, no, great question, and I've told folks before, look, there is an unwritten rule that senior officers don't speak out against the President.

And I think that is a good unwritten rule.

So I have said to folks who criticize me, it's fair criticism.

I'm okay if you tell me -- and believe me, I got a lot of hate mail.

But I recognize that.

I said, look, I get it.

I'm a senior officer.

I understand the rule.

I violated the rule.

However, I've also got to look up, you know, wake up every morning, look in the mirror and ask myself whether I think I'm doing the right thing.

John Brennan I have known for a long time.

He is a great -- was a great public servant, worked for six different presidents.

And so I felt it was important to, you know, to make sure that both John Brennan and the public understood that I didn't feel it was right for the President to come after John Brennan as a private citizen and try to revoke his security clearance.

>> You know, you wrote in The Washington Post about President Trump... Two weeks before the election, you endorsed Joe Biden in an opinion editorial in The Wall Street Journal, and you called yourself a... Why was your endorsement such a clear decision for you, Admiral?

>> Well, because it is about leadership.

And my concern was that the President was not showing, not demonstrating the kind of leadership that I have seen throughout my 40 years of being in leadership positions.

And I didn't disagree with all of the President's policies.

As I said there, you know, I am a pro-life conservative.

Of course, I also said -- and people tend not to quote the second part of that -- but I also said that, look, I actually believe that black lives matter.

I believe in the First Amendment.

I believe in other rights.

And so I wanted to kind of balance it so that the readers understood, yes, I am a conservative, but I also understand the other side of the argument.

My concern with the President was I'd just never seen a leader that belittled people, that failed to tell the truth when it was important to do so, so it was more about the President's leadership than it was about his policies, and that's the reason I endorsed President Biden.

>> I mean, given the hero code, the service that you had, the leadership that you've demonstrated over the course of your long career, how do you reflect on this moment in American not just politics, but our culture that does seem so divided and hyperpolarized?

>> Yeah, I'm actually very optimistic, and that may surprise a lot of people.

I came into the military in the '70s.

So when we take a look at the things we're dealing with today, you know, the social unrest, you know, the presidential leadership, I mean, all the sorts of things that people kind of wake up today and think, "Oh, my gosh, this is something we've never seen before," well, then they're probably young because this is a little bit of a cycle.

So I think we've got to be able to address the social issues.

We've got to be able to address the leadership not just at the presidential level, but across all leadership levels.

But I think we'll get there.

I'm the biggest fan of the millennials and the Gen-Z that you'll ever meet.

And I think that surprises a lot of people as well.

But those people that have characterized the millennials and the Gen-Zs as these soft little entitled snowflakes have never seen them in a firefight in Afghanistan or haven't seen them, you know, trying to make a better life for their family.

You know, going to a school in the University of Texas system.

I've got great hope for this generation.

And again, I don't agree with everything that they say or that they profess as a generation.

But what I have seen is these young men and women are bright, they are enthusiastic, they are entrepreneurial.

They question, you know.

They question authority in a way that makes a lot of people uncomfortable.

But I am confident that they are going to lead us to a better place as the years go by.

>> Admiral, Congress is considering removing the chain of command for serious crimes, including sexual assaults in the military.

New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand reportedly has bipartisan support of more than 60 senators, and top officers in each military service have urged caution.

The Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, has, for the first time, expressed support for removing the chain of command in cases involving sexual assaults.

Do you have a position on this issue?

>> I do think -- I mean, we clearly have a problem of sexual misconduct within the military, and so nobody should underplay that or try to soft-pedal that at all.

We have a problem.

We need to do everything we can to fix it, period.

My concern and I think the concern from the other members of the Joint Chiefs is that the bill is a little bit more, you know, on the bus than just attacking or just going after the issues of sexual misconduct.

You know, if we are going to have a panel of military judges review, again, sexual assault, I'm not sure that in and of itself is a bad idea.

But then you have to be careful about the slippery slope that then begins to take the need for good order and discipline out of the hands of the commander.

So are there things we need to address in the military that we can do better?

You bet.

But I do think we need to be a little bit careful about broadening it too much and taking too much authority out of the hands of the commander.

And I do believe that's what the concern on the part of the Joint Chiefs are.

>> So the bill as written, Kirsten Gillibrand's bill, Senator Gillibrand's bill, is too broad, as written?

You would prefer if it were more narrow and refined?

>> Well, I think I'm reflecting the views of the Joint Chiefs.

But, yes, I think we've got to be a little bit careful about making the bill too broad.

But we clearly have to address the issue of sexual misconduct, sexual assault in the military.

>> I'd like to ask you about civilian leadership of the Pentagon.

You know, as you know, America preserves its democracy in part through the civilian control of the military, though we have seen this extraordinary turn of events in recent times with two four-star generals receiving waivers from the Senate to lead the Department of Defense.

Is this a good pattern?

>> Well, we absolutely need civilian control of the military, period.

That's it.

Having said that, I have no issues at all with former military officers like Jim Mattis and Lloyd Austin being confirmed to be the secretaries of defense.

One, I happen to know both gentlemen very well.

They are exceedingly well-qualified.

So I think you're going to have to take it on a case-by-case basis.

Not every military officer is a good fit to be the Secretary of Defense.

But conversely, I would offer that, you know, not every military officer isn't qualified to be the Secretary of Defense.

So view each person, each man, each woman that has the opportunity to be considered as the Secretary of Defense on the totality of the experience that they bring.

>> The Washington Post reported in April that 44 of the individuals charged in connection with the Capitol riot on January 6th were current or former members of the military.

What needs to be done, Admiral, to combat extremism in the military and amongst our veterans?

>> Well, I don't think anybody should be surprised by that number, to be honest.

The military is a microcosm of society.

So, you know, if you are going to have, you know, people in society that made the decision, as egregious and as horrible as it was, you're going to have to expect that some of those people were probably in the military just because, again, the military is this microcosm of society.

So I think we need to take steps.

Again, I'd be reluctant to go down and identify every step I think we need to take.

This gets back to kind of the role of the commanders.

The reason we choose these great men and women to be commanders is because, you know, hopefully and the expectation is they have the experience to be able to understand their unit, to be able to see where the problems of extremism may arise.

And so, you know, you've got to allow the commanders to have some latitude in dealing with this.

You know, the military tries to be a, you know, a self-correcting organization.

And when we see problems, we're going to address them.

You know, hopefully we'll get this right.

We'll probably get some of it wrong, but hopefully we'll get more of it right than we get wrong.

>> In "The Hero Code," you also share how your own doctor, Michael Keating, gave you and your wife hope in your own diagnosis with lymphomic leukemia in 2010 while serving in Afghanistan.

It's been more than a decade since you were diagnosed.

What can you tell us, Admiral, about your current health?

>> Well, my current health is very good, and thanks for asking.

I had a checkup about six months ago.

I'm due for another one.

But I did get some treatment back in 2017 from Dr. Keating.

And that treatment seemed to serve me very, very well.

All my numbers are good.

I'm strong, I feel great.

And that's sometimes the best indication.

>> In a USA Today interview, you recognized that you had exposure to toxins in your training, in the course of your training, in the course of your service.

Senator Marco Rubio and Kirsten Gillibrand -- both have been guests on this program -- have lobbied for bipartisan burn pit legislation to protect veterans.

Do you support that cause?

>> Absolutely.

You know, the burn pits were an unfortunate necessity.

You know, there was unfortunately no other way to deal with the waste other than burning, at least the sense of it was.

And so we clearly know from, I think, enough evidence that the burn pits, you know, had carcinogenic effects.

And so I think we need to aggressively pursue, you know, some sort of legislation that allows us as a country to be able to deal with the effects of these burn pits.

>> You're 65 years old now, Admiral, by my count.

That's a full 13 years younger than President Biden.

And look, there are a lot of people who suggest that you might have another chapter of leadership in public service in your future.

Does that kind of leadership opportunity interest you?

>> You know, what I've said before is if ever asked to serve again, I'd be happy to serve in any capacity under the right administration.

But I'm not a politician.

I don't think I'd be a very good politician.

My politics are kind of right down the middle.

And today it seems that you have to, you know, swing hard to one side or the other.

So while I believe in a lot of the liberal causes that are out there, I'm a pro-life guy.

That's probably not going to sit well on the Democrat side.

And then, of course, as a Republican, I do support a lot of the liberal causes.

So that wouldn't put me in a good position with them.

So, you know, I want to do what I can as a private citizen.

But again, if asked to serve in a capacity in administration that was within my wheelhouse, I would certainly entertain that.

>> Admiral McRaven, thank you very much for joining me this week, and I look forward to speaking to you again next week about three of your famous missions, the capture of Saddam Hussein, the rescue of Captain Richard Phillips, and the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

Thank you for your service, Admiral McRaven.

>> Thank you, Margaret.

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by... ...and by... Corporate funding is provided by... ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ >> You're watching PBS.