AREAS OF CONCERN
Admiral Mike Mullen,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff outlines some of the
issues confronting the
United States
edited by
Richard H. Wagner
(Originally published in The Log, The Official
Journal of the Navy League of the United
States New York Council, Spring 2009)
On 2 April 2009, Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, was in New York to speak at an event sponsored by the Hudson Union
Society and the Cornell Club of New York. Admiral Mullen divided his talk
into three main areas of concern and then took questions relating to those
topics. The following is excerpted from his remarks.
The Middle East
At the top of my list right now - - and has actually has been for some time - - is stability in the
broader Middle East. I would extend that into South-Central and Central Asia as well. Central
to that obviously is Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iraq is moving in the right direction in many ways. Certainly, the Presidential announcement
a few weeks ago speaks to what has literally turned around almost 180 degrees from 2006. [This
is due] in great part to the young men and women [of the American military] and the incredible
sacrifices that they have made in order to turn that around. I have walked the streets [of Ramadi]
with hordes of children at my feet and it is a different place because of that sacrifice that
occurred a couple of years ago.
Generally, we are on a good glide slope right now. It is not exact. There is a lot still left to
do. Al Queda is still active there. There are an awful lot of politics that will be involved over
the next couple of years to make sure that the opportunities that have been presented, in fact, are
taken advantage of over time. So, by no means do we have our eye off the ball in Iraq.
To remind, there are 140,000-plus troops who are there as we speak today still carrying out
the mission that they are directed to carry even in the time of transition which is occurring. The
Iraqi security forces are getting better and better and leading in places.
2009 is an important year globally and it is no less important in Iraq. It is a critical year
there. There are elections there at the end of the year. There is a lot left to do in Iraq and we
are still very much focused on that. That said, the trends are in a very positive direction.
I have spent a lot of time since I have been in the job focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The strategic review is now complete. The President announced the strategy [March 27] and as
he said to those of us who were with him at that announcement: "Okay, the strategy is out, now
we have to go execute it."
And we do have to execute it. It is an enormous challenge. It is an enormously complex
part of the world. In many ways it is more complex than Iraq. And it is not just Afghanistan, it
is a regional focus required here. As there often is throughout the world when we have
conflicts, problems and challenges, it is not about one country. So, the focus is on Pakistan and
Afghanistan here and I extend that to include India in this as a regional player and then there are
other global players that have interests in this part of the world as well.
The overall goal is to do this in a way that stabilizes and does not destabilize the situation.
These are both sovereign countries with elected governments and we have to keep that in mind
as we move through the strategy execution.
It is not all about military. The President was very clear that this strategy is focusing on
defeating Al Queda. Their leadership resides in the western border [area] of Pakistan. They
are harbored, supported, given areas to rest and train by the Taliban who move across that
border freely.
While we have a democratically elected government in Afghanistan, it is very important that
over the next couple of years, we are able to turn around what is a trend of increased violence
and insecurity for the Afghan people, so that they can vote out and essentially eliminate the
Taliban from their country as well. [It is also very important] that we put Afghanistan into a
position where that same safe haven that started in Kandihar in Afghanistan and has since moved
to Pakistan cannot return.
We will do that by rapidly continuing to build up the security forces, the army and the
police in Afghanistan, and by moving along lines of economic development. Probably the most
important part is to create governance in a country at every level - -not just the national level
[but also] at the district level, the provincial level. If we don't do that it won't make any
difference how many more troops we send in - - it is just not going to work.
At the center of all this in Afghanistan are the Afghan people. That is what this is all about
and putting them in a position to take back their country, have a government which provides for
them and do it with a level of security and stability that actually creates hope for them in the
future. It is not the intent to turn Afghanistan into a Jeffersonian democracy.
Parents want to raise their kids in a safe environment and have their standard of living be
higher than the one that they grew up with. So, in many ways this is about the economy, jobs,
and about choices in how to earn income.
We learned in Iraq that there were insurgents who were not necessarily zealots but who
would certainly take pay from the radicals to fight us. Given another choice, they made other
choices. That is true in Afghanistan as well.
We have spent a lot of time in the last couple of years building the ring road around
Afghanistan. That ring road is the key to economic flow there.
Clearly, there is additional infrastructure required and this is up to the Afghan people. I
would not be one that would prescribe what the infrastructure should look like in a country that
does not have much and has never had much. I think we need to be mindful of this and get to a
point where there is an understanding of what is required to make an economy run and to
continue to improve and make decisions about that.
The other concern that I have is that one of the things that we can do in the military is that
we can build infrastructure. We go in and we can build a base where we go and in Iraq and we
built a lot of them in a lot of places. I only want bases in our infrastructure [in Afghanistan] to
be what we need. We need infrastructure in Afghanistan to operate, there is no question about
that. I do not want it to be as big as we can make it because it does not need to be for us to do
the job that we need to do.
We cannot do this alone and I say this in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. I have believed for a
year that we are living in a world where the United States cannot do it alone. We have got to
have allies and friends and partners. The NATO contribution here is very important as well.
There is an awful lot that strategically has come together in recent weeks and as I said
earlier, it is important for us to go out and execute right now.
I get asked the question: "When are you going to find Osoma?" He is a really bad guy and
we would love to do it. But it is not the answer for Al Queda. Capturing him or killing him
would certainly have an impact on that organization but it is not going to defeat that organization,
I don't believe at this point.
What I have also learned is that individuals like him when they hide, they hide pretty well,
all over the world actually. It is not because there is not a lot of effort going on. At some point
in time, I fundamentally believe it is going to happen but it is obviously not an easy task.
What is very important is that Bin Laddin, Zalwahere, and the leadership are very much still
plotting against America. I know that. They are plotting from the western border of Pakistan - -
that is where they reside. We must defeat them and do it in a way that does not allow them to
generate another attack like that despite their desire to do that. They are enemy number one, we
know that and we are going after them.
Focusing on Pakistan, Admiral Mullen underscored the importance of building a long term
relationship between the United States and Pakistan. I am reasonably comfortable that their
nuclear weapons are secure. We have invested in that. They have taken significant steps in
recent years. So, I am comfortable.
My biggest concern is if Pakistan gets to a point where it implodes. You will have a country
which could be an Islamist theocratic country with nuclear weapons that could both use them and
proliferate them. In my judgment, one of our goals is to make sure that that does not happen.
That is why the strategy is not just Afghanistan or Pakistan. It focuses in on Al Queda. As
recently as this week and last week, you saw Pakistani citizens getting routinely killed by
suicide bombers and the terrorists who live there bragging about it. I fundamentally believe that
these terrorists pose an existential threat to the current government in Pakistan. Over the past
year or so, I see a broader and broader recognition and acceptance of that, certainly by the
military leadership and that is where I spend most of my time. That said, they are a sovereign
country and so my goal is to figure out a way to assist them where they want to be assisted..
[Another priority is] the elimination of the safe haven for Al Queda. They are not just trying
to kill locals, they are trying to kill us. So, that elimination is critical. We also need to have
Afghanistan in good enough shape so that the Al Queda leadership does not return to
Afghanistan. [We need to ensure that] there is not fertile ground for another safe haven in
Afghanistan [for Al Queda] to return.
The Pakistan military has lost a lot of soldiers - - over a thousand soldiers in this fight over
the last couple of years, so they have paid a tremendous price. So, how can we help train and
equip and have a better relationship to better address those mutual interests really with them in
the lead because it is their country. That is sort of the Pakistan piece.
My view is that there is a sense of urgency about meeting these needs and yet there are time
constraints in terms of training and adjusting. The Pakistani military is not a counter-insurgency
force. They are worried about the Kashmir border. They have a counter-insurgency
requirement on the western side. [Pakistan] has two fronts that it has to worry about, one of
which is the conventional view and the other of which is the counter-insurgency view.
They have an intelligence organization that in my view must change its strategic approach
and become completely disconnected from the insurgents. They are not right now and we know
that. That's an outcome that has to be achieved as well.
It is an extraordinarily complex part of the world and its going to take a concerted
comprehensive effort, civilian and military. I talked about the civilian side of the Afghanistan
piece, it also takes great civilian leadership at every level in Pakistan as well.
We had no relationship with Pakistan for 12 years. From 1990 to 2002, we sanctioned them.
There is a tremendous trust deficit between the countries and we are working hard to fill that
up. Being there and being partners with them for more than one year at a time, which is sort of
where we have been, is important as well. As important as the non-military aid of 1.5 billion
dollars a year is, recognizing that we are in a global economic and financial crisis, probably
more important is that [the Kerry-Lugar bill], if it gets to the point where it gets approved, is a
five year program, it is not a one year program. That gets us to a point where they start to
believe that we are going to be there for them. It is built on this trust deficit that we have had, it
speaks to the challenge that we have.
[Pakistan and Afghanistan are] not the only countries or areas in the Middle East that are of
concern. A continuing concern is Iran. I am encouraged by the dialogue, the out reach and we
shall see where that goes. This is a country that I believe is still intent to build nuclear weapons
and I worry about them having them and what they can do with them. But I worry as much, if not
more, about their proliferation. The tendency in regions is that once one country has them, then
another country develops them. There are many unintended consequences some of which I might
be able to predict, others of which would be hard to predict, if Iran gets nuclear weapons.
So, there are plenty of challenges in just that part of the world that all of us are routinely
involved in and there aren't just military answers to these challenges. There are political and
diplomatic efforts and policy efforts, which in my view, must lead the military options, if you
will, or even the military execution.
The State of the Military
I am extremely concerned about the health of the force. We are in our eighth year of war. I
spent a day at Fort Drum in New York and a day with my wife at Fort Campbell where we
talked to thousands of spouses and soldiers. At one of the meetings up in Fort Drum, we met
with 350 spouses. I tried to have a ten minute conversation but I got about 60 seconds into it
before the hands started going up saying: 'I have a question for you Mr. Chairman' or for my wife.
They have been extraordinary. They have been raising families. They have been doing
what military families have been doing forever. I asked them to raise their hands, how many
deployments and a couple of them were on six since 2001 and these are fairly extensive
deployments. Our special forces have actually done more than that but their deployments are not
that long. The cumulative effects continue to build and are significant. Our families and also
our military are unbelievably resilient but not limitless in that regard and we have to recognize
that.
How do we help them, how we support them - - from medical to housing to education to
jobs to ensuring that they have the support they need, particularly in this cycle of repeated
deployments - - is absolutely critical. So, we spend a lot of time on that. I can't say enough
about how great they have been, how much we have needed them.
Yet, the challenges continue. Certainly, for the next couple of years, the way I see the
deployment numbers laying out, coming down in Iraq and up somewhat in Afghanistan, we have
another 18 to 24 months before I see us at a point where we can actually extend the time at home
after deployment. Right now, if you do a 12 month deployment, you come back for 12 months
and then you go again if you are in the Army. We need to get that to 12 month deployment and 24
months at home. That's the target but I am really about two years away before I see that opening.
We are very focused on taking care of those who are wounded, taking care of the families of
those who are wounded and taking care of the families of the fallen. I was with several spouses
on Tuesday night at an annual gala for an organization called Taps - - and Taps is the gold
standard as far as I am concerned in taking care of surviving family members. I was reminded
as I am often with them of that sacrifice - - these are individuals who have paid the ultimate
price - - and as far as I am concerned in our country there is nothing we can't do for them.
The same is true for our wounded. We have asked them to go into harm's way, they have
done what we asked them to do and again there is nothing that we shouldn't figure out a way we
can take care of. Obviously, their lives have been changed forever. At the same time their
dreams haven't changed. They still want to have families, they still want to have two jobs in the
family, they would like to go to school, they would like their kids to go to school and they would
like to own a piece of the rock. The path may have changed.
[Admiral Mullen believes the only way to achieve this] is to do this as a community-based
effort throughout the country. The communities throughout the land who have made these
sacrifices and in ways make sure that they are taken care of. The Department of Defense, the
Veterans Affairs Department as well as communities throughout the land need to ensure that we
know what those needs are and how to meet them and our systems are not set up for that right
now.
I am a Vietnam baby. That was when I was serving, that was my first war. I remember
when we did not take care of those who served. I remember when this uniform got spat on and
we wouldn't wear it. Whatever anybody's views have been or are on these wars that is not
going on right now. Our men and women are widely supported - - widely and broadly and in
great depth supported throughout our country. That warms my heart. It has been a worry since
these wars started for me because of my background but it has not come to fruition although my
antenna is still up.
The other piece of this is those veterans . . . I have started to meet with in veterans hospitals
homeless veterans - - OEF and OIF vets. They are every bit as homeless and every bit as tragic
as any homeless vet we have ever had. And we as a country should not allow that to happen.
We allowed that to happen in Vietnam and we should not allow that now. So, it is a priority for
me as well to keep that issue front and center and to figure out a way that we as a country do not
permit that to repeat itself. It is not a 10 year problem. It is a 50 or 60 or 70 year problem.
These young vets of 20 or 23 or 29. I bring that to your attention and I am looking for ways to
stay connected as General Chinsecki is who now runs the VA and I couldn't be more delighted
with that but we have a long way to go. I don't know how to do that except through a community
based approach.
Those are all things that young recruits to be will look at about whether this is an outfit that I
want to belong to. All of this sort of rolls into how do we take care of our people and the
recruiting and retention decisions that are absolutely vital to our all volunteer force.
We have seen over the last year or so a dramatic spike in suicides. It has been most evident in
the Army. I think the number in 2008 was 143. I was at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, I think it was
mid-February, and there had already been eight suicides in the Army at the vicinity of Fort
Campbell. So, we know we have a severe problem. I believe that the cumulative effects of
these deployments, the pressure that so many are under, the impact of what mostly our soldiers
and Marines have been through - - there are certainly Sailors, Airmen and Coast Guardsmen that
have been through a lot as well - - and in our eighth year of war, has a lot to do with this.
Suicide is a very tough problem. We have generated a concerned leadership effort to focus
on this in all our services. The Army increase is the most dramatic but it is up in every service
this last year from what it has been and the trend is all in the wrong direction. There are those
that have not deployed that have committed suicide as well.
In the Marine Corps case, we still stay home as long as we have been gone. The challenge
is we go for seven months, we come back for seven months. Within 30 days of my coming back,
I am turning my head back into the game because six months from there I am going to be back in
the fight.
One of the big categories right now that we see is children. The effect of what has occurred
in a family on their kids without one of the principals for an extended period of time has been
pretty dramatic as well.
Addressing this need is a leadership issue on the one hand but we also need mental health
providers. We are struggling with respect to that. While we have dramatically increased the
numbers on the order of hundreds, throughout the military in the last two to three years, we are
still well short in my sampling as we go around for the mental health needs.
The challenges associated with this are exceptionally high. Leadership is addressing this.
We have resourced it. I sign up to this to some degree. We are short mental health
professionals in the country so that translates to a shortage of being able to get them into the
military. I accept that on one hand. But on the other hand, I know organizations that provide pro
bono mental health and they have mental health professionals lined up ten deep to give
assistance to individuals and family members who need it. So, it is connecting those two that I
really believe we have to do.
The National Guard in Montana has been addressing this. Their Guard is deployed, has
been very innovative and creative and forged a relationship with Tricare to essentially embed in
the National Guard units mental health professionals who join the National Guard and provide
the kind of care that is needed.
The constancy of focus on people who have been through so much must be there. Not just
by mental health professionals but by everybody that is involved. You have to have an
understanding of what someone has been through and that is very difficult to really understand as
well. Despite the fact that we are in year eight, we are at the beginning of really starting to
understand the impacts of PTS (post traumatic stress), the impacts of traumatic brain injury, mild
or severe, the long lasting effects, the treatment of it and we need all the help we can get from
anywhere in the land, actually from anywhere in the world, but from anywhere in the land that
knows about this and which can reach out to us to assist with this.
I think it is very important that [the military is] spread throughout the country in as many
ways as possible. I think our military needs to represent our country ethnically as well as
geographically. So, when I see the military receding from an area, and I'll speak to BRAC as an
example, but in the northeast, it is a concern of mine because I think it is in the relationships in
the local communities that people come to understand who we are. We are Americans and we
come from all over this country and in many cases, many other countries of the world.
I have gone and been in discussions like this at Yale, at Princeton, and at Penn. I go to
Harvard later this year, specifically to ensure that we are well represented. There are very
difficult issues tied to where our ROTC units are. Some of those decisions were made back in
that time when I was young and have not been reversed. I certainly would like to see that more
diverse spread if you will, not just here in the northeast but in other places as well. That said,
based on the overall size of the military, there is a finite [limit to] how many places it can be. I
think it is really important that the United States military is connected to its country and to its
people in lots of ways, not just in the ROTC world. So to the degree that we can enhance that I
think it is to the great benefit of our military and of our country and to the degree that we are
shrinking that, I worry about the long term effects.
Fundamentally, I believe warfare is warfare and we are in it. It changes. It covers the full
spectrum from low intensity to high intensity, from low tech to high tech. We have over the last
three years developed the best counter-insurgency force in the history of warfare. Before 2006,
we hardly as an organization, an institution, knew what that was. Irregular warfare,
unconventional warfare, asymmetric warfare - - there are a lot of terms for it. A term that is
also being used now is hybrid-warfare - - being able to do irregular plus conventional. We
need to have that capability. We need to balance our overall force and we need to recruit
people who match up to the full spectrum requirement. We need to obviously have to have
training which supports us and we need the equipment which supports us.
In many cases, we are learning as we go. The Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the
military services, have a tendency to like what we have. So, when things have to change it is
hard. It is just like with counterinsurgency. When we finally made up our minds, we got it and
we were able to adapt and adjust and nobody does it any better. There is a momentum towards
conventional warfare despite the lessons we are seeing right now. Many of us in leadership are
trying to make sure that everything we do involves incorporating those lessons. In terms of how
we are training, how we are recruiting, what kind of language skills, what kinds of cultural
backgrounds and what kind of equipment we buy for the future.
I believe we have to have a significant part of our military which is lighter, more precise,
more lethal, technically focused, more language focused than we have had in the past. We are
moving in that direction but this is a big ship headed in one direction and when you turn the
rudder full, it has a way of heading in the same direction. It takes a while to start turning and we
have started.
I know that [the global financial crisis] will have an effect on the Department of Defense. It
must. The Department of Defense has enjoyed a budget increase that has basically doubled in
the last seven or eight years and fully resourced what we need for the wars and that is a must.
But it was my view, even before the elections that somehow this will affect us and we will have
to figure out how to meet that need. I think this isn't just about the Department of Defense but
about the entirety of government.
From what I have seen in the brief time - - and basically we are in our third month with
President Obama's administration - - he has been very supportive of our needs and he has funded
very specifically the operations that are required. One of the things that he spoke to as a
candidate and he has supported as President is the increased size of the Marine Corps and the
Army. We are just about there - - this year actually - - because recruiting has been solid in both
services and he is very supportive of that. He has also been supportive of not making the Navy
and the Air Force smaller. We are about the size or will be in the next year or so, we are going
to be. He has been very supportive of that.
That said, in addition to our people - - and they really are our nation's treasure - - we are
resourced by the American people and we have to do that responsibly. I think like anybody
else, any other organization, any other government organization, we are going to have to make
some hard choices particularly in how fast we move to the future with respect to the stuff that we
buy. Not unlike any big business, the most expensive part of our business, the biggest resource
draw are people and rightfully so. After that we must fund the operations we are in and I see
full support for that. As pressure grows though, I think we are going to have to slow down, the
kinds of procurement accounts that we have had in terms of moving to the future. We are going
to have to make some tough decisions with respect to that.
The Rest of the World
The third thing for me is the rest of the world and it's a big world. There are challenges in lots
of other places and as we have focused on Central Command and put a lot of our resources
there, there are things that we cannot do. We just can't get it done because we have our
resources, our people, engaged heavily in the Central Command AOR. So that raises our risk
there for the long term.
At the heart of the global concerns right now is this economic and financial crisis. I
fundamentally believe that in its depth and in its length, it has potential to generate instability in
lots of places, some of which we might be able to guess and others of which will surprise us.
I was taken back yesterday as I looked at the news of the riots in London. I know there have
been demonstrations in other countries. So, I am reminded of that in that regard. I know the
potential and governments have to be able to provide for their people and that is tougher right
now because of the financial crisis.
It is an important time for all of us to pull together. I believe in this country and we can and must
for an awful lot of reasons.
I spent basically a week in South America and ended up in Mexico City engaging there. We
have a growing relationship with the Mexican military. I give President Calderon a lot of credit.
I talk about civilian leadership in this and he has made a strategic decision in Mexico to take on
the cartels. That is a decision which has obviously generated a level of violence. It is not
surprising that there would be additional violence when you are talking about these kinds of
cartels. These are bad guys, thick as thieves, who survive and have been doing this for long
time. So, it is a tough fight.
When I go there, one of the first things that they ask Americans is when are you going to
reduce the demand signal. That is not an illegitimate question in my view.
They are extremely concerned about the weapons that are coming out of America across the
border. They are extremely concerned about the money that is being laundered and sent back to
Mexico. Those too are legitimate concerns.
What my charge is is to figure out a way to assist the military in this shared concern that I
just described, which is why I went there to meet with the head of their military. It is a growing
positive relationship and we are going to do that.
We have increased the border police. We have increased the police. We recognize that it
is a shared responsibility on that border and we have to get at it together. I don't think this is
short term. I think this is another issue that is going to take some time.
What we have learned in our counter-insurgency world is that there are some effective
tactics, techniques, training, procedures, equipment, technology, which can help. Where we on
the military side are able to lend support, we are going to try to do that.
It is really up to the Mexican President. It is really up to the Mexican military. He also has
police, which are very corrupt, not completely corrupt but very corrupt, which is why he has
turned this mission over to the military. He is a friend and they are a country that we are close
to as friends and physically close. So, pay a lot of attention to this. I think it is important.
While the President has not asked the military troops there, he certainly is focused on this and is
supportive of President Caldarone's efforts.
We had a pretty significant incident about a month ago [with China]. What was really
involved there was this EEZ [Exclusive Economic Zone]. Many countries have [one]. It goes
out to 200 nautical miles but it does not restrict operations inside it except when you get to
territorial waters. So, we operate, we believe in freedom of the seas, we always have. I spent
my life representing that around the world. It is a rich economic zone so this is certainly from
their position incredibly sensitive but what we were doing and operating there was in
accordance with international law. I think they understand it even if they disagree with us being
there. I was very concerned about the incident. I also appreciated the fact that it was resolved in
a way that did not escalate. It was de-escalated.
With China and with other countries, we are going to have some things we agree on and
other things that we don't agree on. I think it is important in our dealings with a country like
China to figure out where are mutual interests are and working those things together. Then figure
out a way how to work the issues that seem to be mutually exclusive on occasion to see if those
can be resolved.
There is a concern with what North Korea is doing with respect to the missile. They
announced: "We are going to launch a satellite." I think it is very important to understand is that
the technology that is tied to that missile - - the engines, the guidance system, the other
engineering - - is the same technology that you would use to put a different package on top of
that, [which for a] country with nuclear weapons could at some point be a nuclear weapon.
Should he do this, it is against what the United Nations has laid out, which is an international
decision, - - U.N. Security Council Resolution 1718. There is certainly the potential for this to
be very provocative. We need to make sure that it does not escalate. But this is also an
individual who is very difficult to predict. He is teeing it up for not just us but international
leaders to make a decision about what to do.
Staff, was in New York to speak at an event sponsored by the Hudson Union
Society and the Cornell Club of New York. Admiral Mullen divided his talk
into three main areas of concern and then took questions relating to those
topics. The following is excerpted from his remarks.
The Middle East
At the top of my list right now - - and has actually has been for some time - - is stability in the
broader Middle East. I would extend that into South-Central and Central Asia as well. Central
to that obviously is Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iraq is moving in the right direction in many ways. Certainly, the Presidential announcement
a few weeks ago speaks to what has literally turned around almost 180 degrees from 2006. [This
is due] in great part to the young men and women [of the American military] and the incredible
sacrifices that they have made in order to turn that around. I have walked the streets [of Ramadi]
with hordes of children at my feet and it is a different place because of that sacrifice that
occurred a couple of years ago.
Generally, we are on a good glide slope right now. It is not exact. There is a lot still left to
do. Al Queda is still active there. There are an awful lot of politics that will be involved over
the next couple of years to make sure that the opportunities that have been presented, in fact, are
taken advantage of over time. So, by no means do we have our eye off the ball in Iraq.
To remind, there are 140,000-plus troops who are there as we speak today still carrying out
the mission that they are directed to carry even in the time of transition which is occurring. The
Iraqi security forces are getting better and better and leading in places.
2009 is an important year globally and it is no less important in Iraq. It is a critical year
there. There are elections there at the end of the year. There is a lot left to do in Iraq and we
are still very much focused on that. That said, the trends are in a very positive direction.
I have spent a lot of time since I have been in the job focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The strategic review is now complete. The President announced the strategy [March 27] and as
he said to those of us who were with him at that announcement: "Okay, the strategy is out, now
we have to go execute it."
And we do have to execute it. It is an enormous challenge. It is an enormously complex
part of the world. In many ways it is more complex than Iraq. And it is not just Afghanistan, it
is a regional focus required here. As there often is throughout the world when we have
conflicts, problems and challenges, it is not about one country. So, the focus is on Pakistan and
Afghanistan here and I extend that to include India in this as a regional player and then there are
other global players that have interests in this part of the world as well.
The overall goal is to do this in a way that stabilizes and does not destabilize the situation.
These are both sovereign countries with elected governments and we have to keep that in mind
as we move through the strategy execution.
It is not all about military. The President was very clear that this strategy is focusing on
defeating Al Queda. Their leadership resides in the western border [area] of Pakistan. They
are harbored, supported, given areas to rest and train by the Taliban who move across that
border freely.
While we have a democratically elected government in Afghanistan, it is very important that
over the next couple of years, we are able to turn around what is a trend of increased violence
and insecurity for the Afghan people, so that they can vote out and essentially eliminate the
Taliban from their country as well. [It is also very important] that we put Afghanistan into a
position where that same safe haven that started in Kandihar in Afghanistan and has since moved
to Pakistan cannot return.
We will do that by rapidly continuing to build up the security forces, the army and the
police in Afghanistan, and by moving along lines of economic development. Probably the most
important part is to create governance in a country at every level - -not just the national level
[but also] at the district level, the provincial level. If we don't do that it won't make any
difference how many more troops we send in - - it is just not going to work.
At the center of all this in Afghanistan are the Afghan people. That is what this is all about
and putting them in a position to take back their country, have a government which provides for
them and do it with a level of security and stability that actually creates hope for them in the
future. It is not the intent to turn Afghanistan into a Jeffersonian democracy.
Parents want to raise their kids in a safe environment and have their standard of living be
higher than the one that they grew up with. So, in many ways this is about the economy, jobs,
and about choices in how to earn income.
We learned in Iraq that there were insurgents who were not necessarily zealots but who
would certainly take pay from the radicals to fight us. Given another choice, they made other
choices. That is true in Afghanistan as well.
We have spent a lot of time in the last couple of years building the ring road around
Afghanistan. That ring road is the key to economic flow there.
Clearly, there is additional infrastructure required and this is up to the Afghan people. I
would not be one that would prescribe what the infrastructure should look like in a country that
does not have much and has never had much. I think we need to be mindful of this and get to a
point where there is an understanding of what is required to make an economy run and to
continue to improve and make decisions about that.
The other concern that I have is that one of the things that we can do in the military is that
we can build infrastructure. We go in and we can build a base where we go and in Iraq and we
built a lot of them in a lot of places. I only want bases in our infrastructure [in Afghanistan] to
be what we need. We need infrastructure in Afghanistan to operate, there is no question about
that. I do not want it to be as big as we can make it because it does not need to be for us to do
the job that we need to do.
We cannot do this alone and I say this in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. I have believed for a
year that we are living in a world where the United States cannot do it alone. We have got to
have allies and friends and partners. The NATO contribution here is very important as well.
There is an awful lot that strategically has come together in recent weeks and as I said
earlier, it is important for us to go out and execute right now.
I get asked the question: "When are you going to find Osoma?" He is a really bad guy and
we would love to do it. But it is not the answer for Al Queda. Capturing him or killing him
would certainly have an impact on that organization but it is not going to defeat that organization,
I don't believe at this point.
What I have also learned is that individuals like him when they hide, they hide pretty well,
all over the world actually. It is not because there is not a lot of effort going on. At some point
in time, I fundamentally believe it is going to happen but it is obviously not an easy task.
What is very important is that Bin Laddin, Zalwahere, and the leadership are very much still
plotting against America. I know that. They are plotting from the western border of Pakistan - -
that is where they reside. We must defeat them and do it in a way that does not allow them to
generate another attack like that despite their desire to do that. They are enemy number one, we
know that and we are going after them.
Focusing on Pakistan, Admiral Mullen underscored the importance of building a long term
relationship between the United States and Pakistan. I am reasonably comfortable that their
nuclear weapons are secure. We have invested in that. They have taken significant steps in
recent years. So, I am comfortable.
My biggest concern is if Pakistan gets to a point where it implodes. You will have a country
which could be an Islamist theocratic country with nuclear weapons that could both use them and
proliferate them. In my judgment, one of our goals is to make sure that that does not happen.
That is why the strategy is not just Afghanistan or Pakistan. It focuses in on Al Queda. As
recently as this week and last week, you saw Pakistani citizens getting routinely killed by
suicide bombers and the terrorists who live there bragging about it. I fundamentally believe that
these terrorists pose an existential threat to the current government in Pakistan. Over the past
year or so, I see a broader and broader recognition and acceptance of that, certainly by the
military leadership and that is where I spend most of my time. That said, they are a sovereign
country and so my goal is to figure out a way to assist them where they want to be assisted..
[Another priority is] the elimination of the safe haven for Al Queda. They are not just trying
to kill locals, they are trying to kill us. So, that elimination is critical. We also need to have
Afghanistan in good enough shape so that the Al Queda leadership does not return to
Afghanistan. [We need to ensure that] there is not fertile ground for another safe haven in
Afghanistan [for Al Queda] to return.
The Pakistan military has lost a lot of soldiers - - over a thousand soldiers in this fight over
the last couple of years, so they have paid a tremendous price. So, how can we help train and
equip and have a better relationship to better address those mutual interests really with them in
the lead because it is their country. That is sort of the Pakistan piece.
My view is that there is a sense of urgency about meeting these needs and yet there are time
constraints in terms of training and adjusting. The Pakistani military is not a counter-insurgency
force. They are worried about the Kashmir border. They have a counter-insurgency
requirement on the western side. [Pakistan] has two fronts that it has to worry about, one of
which is the conventional view and the other of which is the counter-insurgency view.
They have an intelligence organization that in my view must change its strategic approach
and become completely disconnected from the insurgents. They are not right now and we know
that. That's an outcome that has to be achieved as well.
It is an extraordinarily complex part of the world and its going to take a concerted
comprehensive effort, civilian and military. I talked about the civilian side of the Afghanistan
piece, it also takes great civilian leadership at every level in Pakistan as well.
We had no relationship with Pakistan for 12 years. From 1990 to 2002, we sanctioned them.
There is a tremendous trust deficit between the countries and we are working hard to fill that
up. Being there and being partners with them for more than one year at a time, which is sort of
where we have been, is important as well. As important as the non-military aid of 1.5 billion
dollars a year is, recognizing that we are in a global economic and financial crisis, probably
more important is that [the Kerry-Lugar bill], if it gets to the point where it gets approved, is a
five year program, it is not a one year program. That gets us to a point where they start to
believe that we are going to be there for them. It is built on this trust deficit that we have had, it
speaks to the challenge that we have.
[Pakistan and Afghanistan are] not the only countries or areas in the Middle East that are of
concern. A continuing concern is Iran. I am encouraged by the dialogue, the out reach and we
shall see where that goes. This is a country that I believe is still intent to build nuclear weapons
and I worry about them having them and what they can do with them. But I worry as much, if not
more, about their proliferation. The tendency in regions is that once one country has them, then
another country develops them. There are many unintended consequences some of which I might
be able to predict, others of which would be hard to predict, if Iran gets nuclear weapons.
So, there are plenty of challenges in just that part of the world that all of us are routinely
involved in and there aren't just military answers to these challenges. There are political and
diplomatic efforts and policy efforts, which in my view, must lead the military options, if you
will, or even the military execution.
The State of the Military
I am extremely concerned about the health of the force. We are in our eighth year of war. I
spent a day at Fort Drum in New York and a day with my wife at Fort Campbell where we
talked to thousands of spouses and soldiers. At one of the meetings up in Fort Drum, we met
with 350 spouses. I tried to have a ten minute conversation but I got about 60 seconds into it
before the hands started going up saying: 'I have a question for you Mr. Chairman' or for my wife.
They have been extraordinary. They have been raising families. They have been doing
what military families have been doing forever. I asked them to raise their hands, how many
deployments and a couple of them were on six since 2001 and these are fairly extensive
deployments. Our special forces have actually done more than that but their deployments are not
that long. The cumulative effects continue to build and are significant. Our families and also
our military are unbelievably resilient but not limitless in that regard and we have to recognize
that.
How do we help them, how we support them - - from medical to housing to education to
jobs to ensuring that they have the support they need, particularly in this cycle of repeated
deployments - - is absolutely critical. So, we spend a lot of time on that. I can't say enough
about how great they have been, how much we have needed them.
Yet, the challenges continue. Certainly, for the next couple of years, the way I see the
deployment numbers laying out, coming down in Iraq and up somewhat in Afghanistan, we have
another 18 to 24 months before I see us at a point where we can actually extend the time at home
after deployment. Right now, if you do a 12 month deployment, you come back for 12 months
and then you go again if you are in the Army. We need to get that to 12 month deployment and 24
months at home. That's the target but I am really about two years away before I see that opening.
We are very focused on taking care of those who are wounded, taking care of the families of
those who are wounded and taking care of the families of the fallen. I was with several spouses
on Tuesday night at an annual gala for an organization called Taps - - and Taps is the gold
standard as far as I am concerned in taking care of surviving family members. I was reminded
as I am often with them of that sacrifice - - these are individuals who have paid the ultimate
price - - and as far as I am concerned in our country there is nothing we can't do for them.
The same is true for our wounded. We have asked them to go into harm's way, they have
done what we asked them to do and again there is nothing that we shouldn't figure out a way we
can take care of. Obviously, their lives have been changed forever. At the same time their
dreams haven't changed. They still want to have families, they still want to have two jobs in the
family, they would like to go to school, they would like their kids to go to school and they would
like to own a piece of the rock. The path may have changed.
[Admiral Mullen believes the only way to achieve this] is to do this as a community-based
effort throughout the country. The communities throughout the land who have made these
sacrifices and in ways make sure that they are taken care of. The Department of Defense, the
Veterans Affairs Department as well as communities throughout the land need to ensure that we
know what those needs are and how to meet them and our systems are not set up for that right
now.
I am a Vietnam baby. That was when I was serving, that was my first war. I remember
when we did not take care of those who served. I remember when this uniform got spat on and
we wouldn't wear it. Whatever anybody's views have been or are on these wars that is not
going on right now. Our men and women are widely supported - - widely and broadly and in
great depth supported throughout our country. That warms my heart. It has been a worry since
these wars started for me because of my background but it has not come to fruition although my
antenna is still up.
The other piece of this is those veterans . . . I have started to meet with in veterans hospitals
homeless veterans - - OEF and OIF vets. They are every bit as homeless and every bit as tragic
as any homeless vet we have ever had. And we as a country should not allow that to happen.
We allowed that to happen in Vietnam and we should not allow that now. So, it is a priority for
me as well to keep that issue front and center and to figure out a way that we as a country do not
permit that to repeat itself. It is not a 10 year problem. It is a 50 or 60 or 70 year problem.
These young vets of 20 or 23 or 29. I bring that to your attention and I am looking for ways to
stay connected as General Chinsecki is who now runs the VA and I couldn't be more delighted
with that but we have a long way to go. I don't know how to do that except through a community
based approach.
Those are all things that young recruits to be will look at about whether this is an outfit that I
want to belong to. All of this sort of rolls into how do we take care of our people and the
recruiting and retention decisions that are absolutely vital to our all volunteer force.
We have seen over the last year or so a dramatic spike in suicides. It has been most evident in
the Army. I think the number in 2008 was 143. I was at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, I think it was
mid-February, and there had already been eight suicides in the Army at the vicinity of Fort
Campbell. So, we know we have a severe problem. I believe that the cumulative effects of
these deployments, the pressure that so many are under, the impact of what mostly our soldiers
and Marines have been through - - there are certainly Sailors, Airmen and Coast Guardsmen that
have been through a lot as well - - and in our eighth year of war, has a lot to do with this.
Suicide is a very tough problem. We have generated a concerned leadership effort to focus
on this in all our services. The Army increase is the most dramatic but it is up in every service
this last year from what it has been and the trend is all in the wrong direction. There are those
that have not deployed that have committed suicide as well.
In the Marine Corps case, we still stay home as long as we have been gone. The challenge
is we go for seven months, we come back for seven months. Within 30 days of my coming back,
I am turning my head back into the game because six months from there I am going to be back in
the fight.
One of the big categories right now that we see is children. The effect of what has occurred
in a family on their kids without one of the principals for an extended period of time has been
pretty dramatic as well.
Addressing this need is a leadership issue on the one hand but we also need mental health
providers. We are struggling with respect to that. While we have dramatically increased the
numbers on the order of hundreds, throughout the military in the last two to three years, we are
still well short in my sampling as we go around for the mental health needs.
The challenges associated with this are exceptionally high. Leadership is addressing this.
We have resourced it. I sign up to this to some degree. We are short mental health
professionals in the country so that translates to a shortage of being able to get them into the
military. I accept that on one hand. But on the other hand, I know organizations that provide pro
bono mental health and they have mental health professionals lined up ten deep to give
assistance to individuals and family members who need it. So, it is connecting those two that I
really believe we have to do.
The National Guard in Montana has been addressing this. Their Guard is deployed, has
been very innovative and creative and forged a relationship with Tricare to essentially embed in
the National Guard units mental health professionals who join the National Guard and provide
the kind of care that is needed.
The constancy of focus on people who have been through so much must be there. Not just
by mental health professionals but by everybody that is involved. You have to have an
understanding of what someone has been through and that is very difficult to really understand as
well. Despite the fact that we are in year eight, we are at the beginning of really starting to
understand the impacts of PTS (post traumatic stress), the impacts of traumatic brain injury, mild
or severe, the long lasting effects, the treatment of it and we need all the help we can get from
anywhere in the land, actually from anywhere in the world, but from anywhere in the land that
knows about this and which can reach out to us to assist with this.
I think it is very important that [the military is] spread throughout the country in as many
ways as possible. I think our military needs to represent our country ethnically as well as
geographically. So, when I see the military receding from an area, and I'll speak to BRAC as an
example, but in the northeast, it is a concern of mine because I think it is in the relationships in
the local communities that people come to understand who we are. We are Americans and we
come from all over this country and in many cases, many other countries of the world.
I have gone and been in discussions like this at Yale, at Princeton, and at Penn. I go to
Harvard later this year, specifically to ensure that we are well represented. There are very
difficult issues tied to where our ROTC units are. Some of those decisions were made back in
that time when I was young and have not been reversed. I certainly would like to see that more
diverse spread if you will, not just here in the northeast but in other places as well. That said,
based on the overall size of the military, there is a finite [limit to] how many places it can be. I
think it is really important that the United States military is connected to its country and to its
people in lots of ways, not just in the ROTC world. So to the degree that we can enhance that I
think it is to the great benefit of our military and of our country and to the degree that we are
shrinking that, I worry about the long term effects.
Fundamentally, I believe warfare is warfare and we are in it. It changes. It covers the full
spectrum from low intensity to high intensity, from low tech to high tech. We have over the last
three years developed the best counter-insurgency force in the history of warfare. Before 2006,
we hardly as an organization, an institution, knew what that was. Irregular warfare,
unconventional warfare, asymmetric warfare - - there are a lot of terms for it. A term that is
also being used now is hybrid-warfare - - being able to do irregular plus conventional. We
need to have that capability. We need to balance our overall force and we need to recruit
people who match up to the full spectrum requirement. We need to obviously have to have
training which supports us and we need the equipment which supports us.
In many cases, we are learning as we go. The Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the
military services, have a tendency to like what we have. So, when things have to change it is
hard. It is just like with counterinsurgency. When we finally made up our minds, we got it and
we were able to adapt and adjust and nobody does it any better. There is a momentum towards
conventional warfare despite the lessons we are seeing right now. Many of us in leadership are
trying to make sure that everything we do involves incorporating those lessons. In terms of how
we are training, how we are recruiting, what kind of language skills, what kinds of cultural
backgrounds and what kind of equipment we buy for the future.
I believe we have to have a significant part of our military which is lighter, more precise,
more lethal, technically focused, more language focused than we have had in the past. We are
moving in that direction but this is a big ship headed in one direction and when you turn the
rudder full, it has a way of heading in the same direction. It takes a while to start turning and we
have started.
I know that [the global financial crisis] will have an effect on the Department of Defense. It
must. The Department of Defense has enjoyed a budget increase that has basically doubled in
the last seven or eight years and fully resourced what we need for the wars and that is a must.
But it was my view, even before the elections that somehow this will affect us and we will have
to figure out how to meet that need. I think this isn't just about the Department of Defense but
about the entirety of government.
From what I have seen in the brief time - - and basically we are in our third month with
President Obama's administration - - he has been very supportive of our needs and he has funded
very specifically the operations that are required. One of the things that he spoke to as a
candidate and he has supported as President is the increased size of the Marine Corps and the
Army. We are just about there - - this year actually - - because recruiting has been solid in both
services and he is very supportive of that. He has also been supportive of not making the Navy
and the Air Force smaller. We are about the size or will be in the next year or so, we are going
to be. He has been very supportive of that.
That said, in addition to our people - - and they really are our nation's treasure - - we are
resourced by the American people and we have to do that responsibly. I think like anybody
else, any other organization, any other government organization, we are going to have to make
some hard choices particularly in how fast we move to the future with respect to the stuff that we
buy. Not unlike any big business, the most expensive part of our business, the biggest resource
draw are people and rightfully so. After that we must fund the operations we are in and I see
full support for that. As pressure grows though, I think we are going to have to slow down, the
kinds of procurement accounts that we have had in terms of moving to the future. We are going
to have to make some tough decisions with respect to that.
The Rest of the World
The third thing for me is the rest of the world and it's a big world. There are challenges in lots
of other places and as we have focused on Central Command and put a lot of our resources
there, there are things that we cannot do. We just can't get it done because we have our
resources, our people, engaged heavily in the Central Command AOR. So that raises our risk
there for the long term.
At the heart of the global concerns right now is this economic and financial crisis. I
fundamentally believe that in its depth and in its length, it has potential to generate instability in
lots of places, some of which we might be able to guess and others of which will surprise us.
I was taken back yesterday as I looked at the news of the riots in London. I know there have
been demonstrations in other countries. So, I am reminded of that in that regard. I know the
potential and governments have to be able to provide for their people and that is tougher right
now because of the financial crisis.
It is an important time for all of us to pull together. I believe in this country and we can and must
for an awful lot of reasons.
I spent basically a week in South America and ended up in Mexico City engaging there. We
have a growing relationship with the Mexican military. I give President Calderon a lot of credit.
I talk about civilian leadership in this and he has made a strategic decision in Mexico to take on
the cartels. That is a decision which has obviously generated a level of violence. It is not
surprising that there would be additional violence when you are talking about these kinds of
cartels. These are bad guys, thick as thieves, who survive and have been doing this for long
time. So, it is a tough fight.
When I go there, one of the first things that they ask Americans is when are you going to
reduce the demand signal. That is not an illegitimate question in my view.
They are extremely concerned about the weapons that are coming out of America across the
border. They are extremely concerned about the money that is being laundered and sent back to
Mexico. Those too are legitimate concerns.
What my charge is is to figure out a way to assist the military in this shared concern that I
just described, which is why I went there to meet with the head of their military. It is a growing
positive relationship and we are going to do that.
We have increased the border police. We have increased the police. We recognize that it
is a shared responsibility on that border and we have to get at it together. I don't think this is
short term. I think this is another issue that is going to take some time.
What we have learned in our counter-insurgency world is that there are some effective
tactics, techniques, training, procedures, equipment, technology, which can help. Where we on
the military side are able to lend support, we are going to try to do that.
It is really up to the Mexican President. It is really up to the Mexican military. He also has
police, which are very corrupt, not completely corrupt but very corrupt, which is why he has
turned this mission over to the military. He is a friend and they are a country that we are close
to as friends and physically close. So, pay a lot of attention to this. I think it is important.
While the President has not asked the military troops there, he certainly is focused on this and is
supportive of President Caldarone's efforts.
We had a pretty significant incident about a month ago [with China]. What was really
involved there was this EEZ [Exclusive Economic Zone]. Many countries have [one]. It goes
out to 200 nautical miles but it does not restrict operations inside it except when you get to
territorial waters. So, we operate, we believe in freedom of the seas, we always have. I spent
my life representing that around the world. It is a rich economic zone so this is certainly from
their position incredibly sensitive but what we were doing and operating there was in
accordance with international law. I think they understand it even if they disagree with us being
there. I was very concerned about the incident. I also appreciated the fact that it was resolved in
a way that did not escalate. It was de-escalated.
With China and with other countries, we are going to have some things we agree on and
other things that we don't agree on. I think it is important in our dealings with a country like
China to figure out where are mutual interests are and working those things together. Then figure
out a way how to work the issues that seem to be mutually exclusive on occasion to see if those
can be resolved.
There is a concern with what North Korea is doing with respect to the missile. They
announced: "We are going to launch a satellite." I think it is very important to understand is that
the technology that is tied to that missile - - the engines, the guidance system, the other
engineering - - is the same technology that you would use to put a different package on top of
that, [which for a] country with nuclear weapons could at some point be a nuclear weapon.
Should he do this, it is against what the United Nations has laid out, which is an international
decision, - - U.N. Security Council Resolution 1718. There is certainly the potential for this to
be very provocative. We need to make sure that it does not escalate. But this is also an
individual who is very difficult to predict. He is teeing it up for not just us but international
leaders to make a decision about what to do.
| SEA SERVICES PEOPLE, PLACES AND ISSUES |
| Its all about ships and more |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
