U.S. Marines with Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment carry a mock casualty during exercise Mojave Viper at Marine Corps Base Twentynine Palms, Calif., March 12, 2009. The combined exercise prepares Marines to deploy to Afghanistan.
Early Bird summary
Thursday’s Early Bird leads with a piece from the Washington Post, echoed by the New York Times, reporting that the Army will phase out the unpopular practice of "stop-loss," which mandates that soldiers stay in the Army beyond their service obligation, over the next two years.In the meantime, the Pentagon will offer extra pay to soldiers who continue to serve under the policy, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said.About 13,000 soldiers are serving under the stop-loss policy, nearly double the total of two years ago. Gates said the goal is to reduce that number by 50 percent by June 2010 and to bring it down to scores of soldiers by March 2011.
Reuters asks, how long might it really take to find al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden? U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates suggests the FBI's 17-year hunt for convicted Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski as a reasonable guide.Or worse still, Gates said on Wednesday, consider the fate of Americans taken hostage decades ago in Lebanon who died before the United States could find and rescue them.Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, Gates dismissed the notion that something might be amiss because bin Laden and his top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahri, remain free more than seven years after the September 11 attacks.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates yesterday announced Navy Adm. James G. Stavridis as the next commander of NATO and said he would recommend a second term for Navy Adm. Mike Mullen as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as reported by the Washington Post.If confirmed by the Senate, Stavridis would be the first naval officer to hold the prestigious post of Supreme Allied Commander Europe, replacing Army Gen. John Craddock, whois expected to retire. The appointment must be approved by NATO's North Atlantic Council of alliance members.Stavridis is head of Southern Command, which oversees U.S. military operations in Latin America. Previously he was the senior military assistant to Donald H.Rumsfeld when Rumsfeld was defense secretary.Gates also recommended that Navy Adm. Robert Willard, head of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, take over as head of the U.S. Pacific Command in place of Navy Adm.Timothy J. Keating.
As the Obama administration ponders reaching out to moderate Afghan insurgents, Kabul has opened preliminary negotiations with the country's most dangerous rebel faction, the Al Qaeda-linked Haqqani network, according to the Christian Science Monitor.The group is accused of masterminding some of the most brazen attacks here in recent years, and a deal with them will likely be key to ending the war."If the Haqqanis can be drawn into the negotiation process," says Kabul-based political analyst Waheed Muzjda, "it would be a serious sign that the insurgents are open to one day making a deal."The Haqqani network is one of three major insurgent groups (in Afghanistan), along with the Taliban and Hizb-i-Islami-Gulbuddin (HIG). Of these, the Haqqanis have orchestrated the majority of the major suicide bombings in Kabul and have significant influence in the southeastern provinces. The group counts many foreign fighters among its ranks and is much closer to Al Qaeda than the other groups, according to US intelligence officials. This influence tends to make the Haqqanis more extremist than other groups.
The New York Times reports that President Obama and his advisers have decided to significantly expand Afghanistan’s security forces in the hope that a much larger professional army and national police force could fill a void left by the central government and do more to promote stability in the country, according to senior administration and Pentagon officials.A plan awaiting final approval by the president would set a goal of about 400,000 troops and national police officers, more than twice the forces’ current size, and more than three times the size that American officials believed would be adequate for Afghanistan in 2002, when the Taliban and Al Qaeda appeared to have been routed.The officials said Mr. Obama was expected to approve a version of the plan in coming days as part of a broader Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy. But even members of Mr. Obama’s national security team appeared taken aback by the cost projections of the program, which range from $10 billion to $20 billion over the next six or seven years.
Talibanization, long a serious problem in Pakistan's northwest, is accelerating in and around the southwestern city of Quetta, undermining secular parties and posing new threats to both Pakistan and Afghanistan, the Washington Times reports.Outside the popular Baig snack bar, a sign now reads: "Woman are not allowed, only for gents." The Taliban forbid mingling of unrelated men and women.Attacks on minority Shi'ite Muslims are also on the rise. In January, Hussain Ali Yousafi, leader of the Hazar Democratic Party, was killed, apparently by Sunni fundamentalists.While the Pakistani government has blamed Baluch ethnic nationalists for the kidnapping last month of American John Solecki, a local representative of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, nationalists have denied this and said the Taliban was involved.
The Washington Times also reports that ballistic missiles could be Israel's weapon of choice against Iranian nuclear facilities if it decides on a pre-emptive attack and deems air strikes too risky, according to a report by a Washington think tank.Israel is widely assumed to have Jericho missiles capable of hitting Iran with an accuracy of a few dozen yards from target. Such a capability would be free of warplanes' main drawbacks - limits on fuel and ordnance, and perils to pilots.Extrapolating from analyst assessments that the most advanced Jerichos carry 1,650-lb conventional warheads, Abdullah Toukan of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said 42 missiles would be enough to “severely damage or demolish” Iran's core nuclear sites at Natanz, Esfahan and Arak.
Finally, an opinion piece in the Washington Post titled “Our Must-Win War,” authored by Sens. John McCain and Joseph Lieberman, states that, “as the administration finalizes its policy review, we are troubled by calls in some quarters for the president to adopt a ‘minimalist’ approach toward Afghanistan. Supporters of this course caution that the American people are tired of war and that an ambitious, long-term commitment to Afghanistan may be politically unfeasible. They warn that Afghanistan has always been a ‘graveyard of empires’ and has never been governable. Instead, they suggest, we can protect our vital national interests in Afghanistan even while lowering our objectives and accepting more ‘realistic’ goals there -- for instance, by scaling back our long-term commitment to helping the Afghan people build a better future in favor of a short-term focus on fighting terrorists.”
Media summary
1. Leading newspaper headlines: The Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and New York Times lead with, and the Wall Street Journal banners, the Federal Reserve's surprise announcement that it would inject the financial system with an additional $1.15 trillion to push down interest rates on mortgages and other consumer and business loans. (Slate Magazine)
2. Transcript of HASC meeting: Full text of Wednesday’s House Armed Services Committee meeting on the subject of Unified Combatant Commands, at which General James Mattis testified, along with General Victor Renuart, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Northern Command; Admiral James Stavridis, U.S. Navy, U.S. Southern Command; and General William Ward, U.S. Army, U.S. Africa Command.
Leading newspaper headlines
The Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and New York Times lead with, and the Wall Street Journal banners, the Federal Reserve's surprise announcement that it would inject the financial system with an additional $1.15 trillion to push down interest rates on mortgages and other consumer and business loans. The central bank said it would purchase government bonds and more than double what it planned to buy in mortgage-related securities in the hopes of spurring economic activity by, essentially, printing more money. The Post says the announcement "amounts to a recognition by Fed leaders that the economy has gotten much worse than they had forecast at their last policymaking meeting." The Fed's latest aggressive strategy "makes it more likely that the country's 15-month-old recession will be over by the end of this year," notes the LAT. The markets liked it, but the move does carry significant inflationary risks.
USA Today leads with, and everybody else fronts, the continuing outrage over the $165 million in bonuses that American International Group paid out to members of its disgraced financial-products unit. AIG's chief executive, Edward Liddy, was grilled by lawmakers yesterday who demanded the money be returned. Liddy said he had asked those who received $100,000 or more to give back at least half. Republicans also criticized Democrats for changing legislation that would have limited executive compensation at companies that received taxpayer money.
To recap, the Fed usually combats recessions by lowering interest rates. But seeing as though the key interest rate is already effectively zero, the central bank has been turning to alternative methods to try to stimulate the economy, and yesterday's announcement marked a big expansion of those efforts. Adding it all up, the Fed said it would buy as much as $300 billion of longer-term U.S. Treasury securities in the next six months as well as purchase an additional $750 billion in mortgage-backed securities, which is on top of the $500 billion that the central bank already said it would buy. In addition, the central bank would double, to $200 billion, the purchase of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debt. "I've never known when the Fed has taken a move this powerful in easing monetary policy," a former Fed economist tells the LAT.
These latest actions mean the Fed's balance sheet continues to grow. Before September, the Fed barely had $900 billion in assets, but after it makes the purchases announced yesterday, and assuming it won't cut back in other areas, that figure will rise to more than $3 trillion. One economist tells the NYT that the Fed has decided to adopt a "kitchen sink" strategy. "They are trying to fire absolutely every weapon they can," one economist tells the LAT. The WSJ points out that the Fed's announcement "highlighted the central bank's ability to move aggressively on the financial crisis without approval from Congress," which is particularly important now that Washington politicians are reluctant to approve more money for bailouts.
Investors certainly liked the announcement. The stock market was down for the day but quickly shot up after the Fed's announcement, and the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index surged 2.1 percent. The yield on 10-year Treasury notes sharply decreased to 2.53 percent from more than 3 percent, "the largest one-day drop since the aftermath of the 1987 market crash," notes the WSJ, suggesting that mortgage rates will soon follow suit. Even assuming that the new measures will work as intended, they're hardly risk-free moves. The value of the dollar sank yet again, illustrating fears that all this money printing could reduce the value of the U.S. currency in the long term. There's also the very real risk of inflation since the Fed might find it difficult to get such a huge amount of money out of the financial system once the economy recovers. "The challenge is the exit strategy," an economist tells the Post.
When testifying before Congress yesterday, Liddy said several of the AIG employees have returned their bonuses but refused to specify how many. Liddy also said he didn't want to provide the names of those who kept the money because he feared for their safety. The WSJ hears word that the AIG employee who received the biggest bonus—$6.4 million—has returned the money. As could be expected, lawmakers were on full-on outrage mode and weren't satisfied with the news that some employees would be giving back their bonuses. The House is scheduled to vote today on a measure to set a tax rate of 90 percent on bonuses that AIG employees receive this year.
Meanwhile, Sen. Chrisopher Dodd tried to explain how a measure in the economic recovery bill that would have limited executive compensation was changed at the last minute to allow certain bonuses. As the NYT points out, "it is far from clear that the change mattered in the case of AIG." But that little detail didn't seem to be of any concern to Republicans who said Democrats could have prevented this mess. Dodd at first said he didn't know how the change was made but then told an interviewer that it came at the request from officials at the Treasury Department.
Even as he said that employees were asked to give back their bonus, Liddy defended the thinking behind making the payments, saying that they were needed to prevent key employees from leaving and creating huge losses for the company. In a front-page piece, the WP says that may not be entirely accurate. By the end of December, AIG had already gotten rid of a large chunk of its riskiest bets. Two executives at AIG's Financial Products division said the hardest work has already been completed, and employees are now focused on unwinding a portfolio that is still large but far less risky. Still, the executives said that losing experienced employees would reduce AIG's ability to get the best price in negotiations with other financial companies. But one former executive says AIG employees aren't exactly haggling, particularly since government officials are encouraging employees to perform the deals at a price point that would help the other financial firms.
The controversy over AIG has now moved well beyond the bonuses, notes the LAT. Lawmakers are raising questions about why AIG used taxpayer money to repay some of Wall Street's largest firms and even some foreign banks. Several lawmakers said the actions once again demonstrated the cozy ties between Washington and Wall Street. Democrats blamed the Bush administration, but Republicans focused their ire on Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, and two lawmakers called for his resignation. President Obama said Geithner "is making the right moves in terms of playing a bad hand" and emphasized that he still has "complete confidence" in his treasury secretary.
Of course, as any observer of Washington's ways knows already, "complete confidence" can soon turn into a resignation "to spend more time with my family." In a front-page piece, the NYT calls this a "defining moment" for the treasury secretary. In defense of Geithner, the NYT points out that he "is shouldering more crises on his slight frame than most Treasury secretaries ever have" and has to do it without a number of assistants who still haven't passed the administration's vetting process. Still, questions surrounding why he didn't know about the bonuses earlier and didn't do anything to stop them "threaten to overwhelm his achievements and undermine Mr. Obama's overall economic agenda." Right now, it's all about what he knew and when he knew it, a question that is also the subject of a separate WP front-page piece. AIG apparently told the Fed about the bonuses three months ago, but the Treasury and White House say they weren't informed until a few days before the payments were due. But one WP source says senior Treasury officials were told at least a month ago, and Time reports that they were informed on Feb. 28. It's all very unclear, to say the least. What does seem obvious is that Fed officials failed to fully appreciate what a huge controversy the bonuses would create.
One of the reasons why it has been hard for many to believe that Geithner didn't know about the bonuses is that he played such a key role in the initial AIG bailout as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. But, in his defense, some say that at the time he was worried about the big picture of preventing a collapse of the financial system and not compensation, a topic that was barely ever discussed.
Hearing Of The House Armed Services Committee
Subject: Unified Combatant Commands
Chaired By: Representative Ike Skelton (D-Mo) Witnesses: General Victor Renuart, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Northern Command; Admiral James Stavridis, U.S. Navy, U.S. Southern Command; General William Ward, U.S. Army, U.S. Africa Command; General James Mattis, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Joint Forces Command Location: Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009.
REP. SKELTON: Our committee comes to order. Today's hearing is part of our annual series of posture hearings with combatant commanders.
I'm pleased to welcome Admiral Stavridis of the Southern Command, General Renuart of the U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command, General Mattis, United States Joint Forces Command, and General Ward of the United States Africa Command.
We're honored to have each of you with us today. We thank you. I also want to extend my appreciation to all the service men and women who work with you. They provide an invaluable service to our country.
Every day, each of you have intractable challenges that are not always part of the morning headlines but are nevertheless vital to our national security. Let me mention a few.
In Latin America, narco syndicates have stained the streets -- of Juarez, Tijuana and elsewhere in Mexico -- with the blood of criminals and innocents alike, as drug lords struggle to survive against a Mexican government-led crackdown and inter-gang warfare. The impact of this violence on our borders concerns me very much, in both the near term as well as the long term, regarding the state of Mexico.
I'd like to hear from General Mattis and General Renuart about the nature of the threat that we have been experiencing on our Mexican borders and in Mexico.
(Inaudible.) Over much of the last decade, a growing number of countries seem to have removed their welcome mats, leaving our country with fewer allies with whom we can continue to build strong military to military partnerships. The implication of this trend, for our ability to conduct counternarcotics and other operations, bears careful monitoring.
Admiral, I welcome your thoughts on this trend.
General Ward, congratulations on your efforts so far. In short order, you've brought Africa Command from being little more than a concept to becoming a fully operational combatant command, with robust interagency participation. We thank you for that.
As AFRICOM continues to plan and execute its mission, it seems to me that improving the COCOM's strategic communications is your primary challenge.
Your task is to explain how working with our African partners to promote stability and security in the continent is consistent with our core national security interests. It's tough to draw the linkage from the work you do today to preventing -- (inaudible) -- the regional wars and the man-made disasters that hopefully will never happen in the future, but it's precisely what you do.
Beyond your strategic communication challenges, the work of AFRICOM has raised other concerns. A lot of the requirements inherent in promoting stability and security within the African economy do not, at first glance, appear to be military tasks. Your command must be careful that by virtue of size it does not squeeze out efforts of our civilian agencies, such as the State Department and the USAID.
Then let me turn to my good friend, my colleague John McHugh from New York and again thank each of you for your excellent contributions to our country. We look forward to your testimony.
Mr. McHugh.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN MCHUGH (R-NY): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Obviously, all of us welcome you gentlemen, bearing deep appreciation for the great leadership that you've shown. And please convey back to those brave men and women in uniform that you command ours and the nation's most profound respect and words of thanks.
Mr. Chairman, as always, you've kind of encapsulated this very important hearing. It's certainly, in my judgment, one of the more critical ones we hold on an annual basis. We're always very happy that our great leaders can be here in person, join us, to come with a broad range of items, some of which you've outlined, Mr. Chairman. I've asked that my entire statement be entered into the record in its entirety.
REP. SKELTON: Without objection.
REP. MCHUGH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And beyond that, let me just underscore a couple of things that you said.
We have very distinct areas of responsibility here. Each have their own significant challenges.
Like you, one of the most pressing, in my judgment, is the very disturbing situation on the U.S.-Mexico border. I share your concern, as I do many others' in this nation, Mr. Chairman, regarding that widening drug war, the possible reach of cartels into America's border town (sic). And it's gotten to the extent where even just last week the president has stated that he's at least considering deploying National Guard troops along that (southern ?) border. And like you, Mr. Chairman, I'm very interested, and I hope we get the opportunity today to discuss a bit about that circumstance and the way forward.
NORTHCOM plays an important role in directing missile defense operations to protect the homeland. And given the nuclear and ballistic-missile ambitions and -- particularly, in recent days, of Iran and North Korea, we have the opportunity today to talk about NORTHCOM's capabilities and force structure to defend the United States from ballistic-missile attack.
And Admiral, as you know and we've had the chance to discuss, you've got some very unique security challenges in your region. And just to stite -- cite one, over the last few years, Colombia has really risen as a democratic leader, with successes against insurgent and paramilitary groups.
That is due in no small measure to the people under your command and the support of this nation in those efforts.
But for all of that, the drug production and trafficking are still a very significant challenge for that nation, and I think it's important for us to hear what we need to do to best support what I would argue is one of our most stalwart allies in South America and, in fact, in this hemisphere.
And General Ward, I think -- I think the chairman summed it up very well. You've done yeoman's work in setting up a command in one of the most complex and, I would argue, most misunderstood regions on the face of the Earth, and I think you've done an outstanding job. And it's not been without challenges, and no one knows more clearly than you. But whether it's questions of interagency presence and buy- ins as well as the understandable delays in establishing certain offices, we need to hear today from you what kinds of areas still exist where you require the support of this Congress, and this committee particularly.
And finally, General Mattis, as Joint Forces Command, amongst the many roles you play, that of providing mission-ready forces to all geographic commands is key amongst them. And obviously, as we draw down troops out of Iraq and begin to build up into Afghanistan, the demand and increase of support functions and those kinds of mission personnel is going to be even more critical, and the challenge that you face in meeting that as the supplier of forces is so vital, obviously, to those missions, but to us, as well. And I hope you will be able to give us an idea how you're going to meet that growing requirement for support functions in Afghanistan and still meet the enduring requirement as it may exist in Iraq.
So, a lot on our plate here, Mr. Chairman, as you and I both agree. Certainly we want to get to the testimony and for the question-and-answer period.
And a final word of appreciation to our witnesses, and particularly a word of deep thanks to those men and women that they have the honor of leading.
I would yield back.
REP. SKELTON: Thank you, Mr. McHugh. We will ask our witnesses -- and before that, I must say that at high noon I have a conflict, and someone else will be helping you finish the hearing; please understand. If you wish to condense your statement, without objection, each of your written statements will be placed into the record.
With that, we will start with Admiral James G. Stavridis. Admiral?
ADM. STAVRIDIS: Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, thank you very much for holding this hearing and allowing us to present to you some ideas. I will make the point that this is a real Goldwater- Nichols hearing. You've got Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines seated here. You could almost call it the Chairman Skelton hearing in the sense of all that he contributed to jointness in the Armed Forces.
Also, I do want to say, as an admiral I'm always -- feel a little safer in the company of generals, especially Marine generals. So I feel pretty safe today, all things considered.
We've had a -- we've had a good and a challenging year down in Southern Command. I'm just going to hit five quick, interesting things that have happened in the course of the last year that maybe will enlighten some of our discussions as we go along today.
First, a very good thing: Last week in my headquarters in Southern Command we had the three U.S. hostages who were held by the Colombian FARC terrorists for five and a half years. Marc, Keith and Tom are their names. And they came to our headquarters to spend an afternoon with my command, talk about their experiences, and to be congratulated by my command for their performance under very arduous conditions.
So it was a nice moment, and it kind of underscores what Representative McHugh was talking about, Colombia's capabilities. I mean, this was a Colombian operation, but it was mounted, after a great deal of partnership-building, by the United States over a 10- year period of bipartisan effort with Plan Colombia. So I'm glad we have our hostages back, and I think it's reflective of the good general trend of events in Colombia.
Secondly, last summer we had a couple of big Navy ships come down to do a great deal of medical engagement and training. It was a terrific deployment; we contributed to medical care for about 200,000 people throughout the region. And we also had the opportunity, as part of that deployment, to have one of our Navy ships go to Haiti and respond to an enormous disaster there following the hurricane -- a good indication of how our U.S. Navy's 4th Fleet is able to do its missions of engagement, training, disaster relief in this region.
Thirdly, we had a good year of military-to-military engagement, which is part of what we do. We had the largest exercise in the world in terms of numbers of countries participating -- 22 of them, in and around the Panama Canal, exercise called PANAMAX. Also did exercises in special forces, in disaster relief, in human rights training, in peacekeeping. A very robust schedule, and I appreciate the committee's support. That makes all of that possible.
That military-to-military human contact trumps everything in terms of moving ourselves forward in engagement in the region.
Fourthly, we continue to struggle with the mission of detection and monitoring of the narcotic flows. And I'm sure we'll talk about that today. I continue to be concerned, as I've talked to this committee over the last couple of years, about the rise of the use of semi-submersible near-submarine-like platforms by the drug cartels. We've captured several of these moving as much as seven tons of cocaine. The numbers we see are rising. It's a significant challenge for us.
We did with international assistance and with interagency assistance participate in interdicting 230 tons of cocaine. There's a lot more flowing, and I believe that a fundamental part of the solution to this narcotic problem is on the demand side here in the United States. We can only go so far with interdiction and work on the supply side. So perhaps we can touch on those topics today.
I understand the concerns in Mexico. I would make the point to the committee that it is not just Mexico; it's also Central America and parts of the Caribbean. There's a supply chain of narcotics and great difficulties -- gangs, poverty -- that run through the region. And we need to address it as a regional problem and not focus solely on our border.
And General Renuart and I are in frequent discussion about that, and I think we have a good program to try and work together across Central America and Mexico in addressing these kinds of issues.
Lastly, I want to close by thanking the committee very much for your support to our new headquarters building down in Miami. We've been in a rented facility for 10 years, since the command moved from Panama. Due to the work of this committee and the support you've provided, there's a new building going up which will bring together Southern Command for the first time all in one building, in a modern facility that will allow us to do our mission properly.
It comes on land that was donated from the state of Florida. It's a great savings to the taxpayer over time, and I thank the committee for that.
With that, I'll close simply by saying thank you for your support for the men and women of U.S. Southern Command.
REP. SKELTON: Thank you so much, Admiral.
General Victor Eugene Renuart, Jr. You like that "junior."
GEN. RENUART: And my mother does, too, as well, Chairman. Thank you very much.
Chairman Skelton and Congressman McHugh, members of the committee, good morning. And like Jim Stavridis, I want to echo the true heartfelt thanks from all the men and women who serve from this -- for the support from Congress in general, and certainly this committee in particular. It's really an honor and privilege to be here today, representing the men and women of North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command.
And I want to point out as I begin, I'm pleased to be accompanied this morning by Command Sergeant Major Dan Wood, seated here behind me. Dan will be retiring in May, after many years of service to the nation and tours in combat theaters in the recent years. And so I want to highlight Dan's service to you, to say thank you to him. But also, he represents our children, and in some cases our grandchildren, that are out there wearing the uniform of our nation every day.
As commander of NORTHCOM, I'm assigned really two particular missions, very specific and important missions: one, to defend the homeland from attack; and two, to support the nation with unique DOD capabilities in times of crisis. And so this runs the gamut, from capabilities like ground-based mid-course interceptors for ballistic missile defense; the execution of the air sovereignty mission, within the borders of the United States; support to law enforcement in areas like along the border; and to support federal agencies, both before and after disaster strikes, as was evidenced with the California wildfires and the hurricanes along the southern coast this past year.
But it's important to note, we are members of a combined national response. We don't do it alone. DOD does not, and should not, have the lead role in many of these events. We're part of a coordinated effort. International, federal, state partners, governors, the National Guard -- all are keys to success for the nation. And DOD plays a role -- in some cases, a very important role; in some cases, very much a small, supporting role.
It's also important to note that we have an excellent relationship with our international partners. Canada, Mexico, the Bermuda -- or Bermuda, the Bahamas, Turks-Caicos, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands all are part of our area of interest, and all play a key role. Most notably, our relationship with Mexico is as strong as it has ever been, military to military, I think, in our history. And we continue to work closely with the leaders of Mexico, as they face some of the challenges in their home country.
We train hard to execute our missions. We execute -- I'm sorry -- we exercise those tasks routinely. I'm pleased to say we now have a national exercise program that all the agencies of government participate in. And we have to ensure that we don't let a sense of security, that we have not had an attack or a major terrorist event in our country since September 11th, let us lower our guard. We have to be ready to ensure that we never let the country down.
Those who wish us harm have not gone away. The threat still exists, and we have to be prepared. They only have to be lucky once. We have to be on guard 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to ensure that it never happens.
We'll keep the momentum going. We'll remain alert. This mission is critically important to us, because it is to prepare for, to defend against, and to provide recovery for your families, your communities, our families and our nation.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. I look forward to a number of questions this morning. Thank you, sir.
REP. SKELTON: Thank you, General.
General James M. Mattis, United States Marine Corps.
GEN. MATTIS: Chairman Skelton, Congressman McHugh, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify and update you on Joint Forces Command. I request my written statement be accepted for the record. And I'll speak for just a couple moments, Mr. Chairman, and leave most of the time for questions.
As you know, sir, the -- ladies and gentlemen, the command's primary missions have both joint and coalition, current and future aspects. We support the current military operations by providing combat-ready forces to combatant commanders. And you're seeing now the reduced force levels in Iraq and the increase in Afghanistan, and that is well under way. We are also preparing for future conflict, thinking ahead so that we are not caught flat-footed in the future.
As you know, we are co-located with NATO's Allied Command Transformation, which I also command. And that brings an essential coalition focus to Joint Forces Command.
We recognize that we can never predict the future precisely, and we must expect to surprised in matters of national security, but we must plan so that surprise is minimized and it's not lethal. We purposely set out to create a shock absorber in our force to withstand the shocks that we know will come.
To this end, we have provided the committee with copies of the Joint Operating Environment, or what we call the JOE, and the Capstone Concept for Joint Operations, the CCJO.
The JOE, the Joint Operating Environment, is our analysis. And it identifies the problem as best we can discern it about the future -- a future of persistent conflict, of hybrid enemy threats, global instability, increasing access to weapons of mass destruction, the rise of regional, state and non-state actors, and the unpredictability of security threats.
The Capstone Concept is Admiral Mullen's vision for how the joint force will operate in the future. That's our proposed solution to the problem statement presented in the JOE. And it guides our force experimentation and, of course, guides our force development.
One thing is clear: We must make irregular warfare a core competency. And this is Joint Forces Command's top priority right now. By using the lessons learned from Iraq, Afghanistan, the Second Lebanon War and applying them to our efforts, we are going to do this.
At the same time, we must have balance, as Secretary Gates has clearly articulated. And in -- as we institutionalize irregular warfare capability, we must maintain our nuclear and conventional superiority, which brings great benefit to the international community. And we also have to bring together this whole-of- government approach that we have gotten great support from this committee and other committees on, because it's going to be vital to maintaining the nation's security in the future, when military means alone are not sufficient.
I'd like to stop at this point, Mr. Chairman, and leave the rest of the time for questions. Thank you.
REP. SKELTON: Thank you very much.
General William E. Ward, known as Kip Ward. General?
GEN. WARD: Thank you, Chairman Skelton, Mr. McHugh, distinguished members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to provide this overview.
With me today are Ms. Mary Pleffner from our Department of Commerce and Mr. Jerry Lanier from the Department of State.
And I'm also honored to appear alongside by distinguished colleagues here.
Last year we discussed a plan to establish our headquarters. Today United States Africa Command is executing our mission of conducting sustained security engagement through military-to-military programs and military-sponsored activities to promote a stable and secure African environment. We work in concert with other U.S. government agencies and international partners to assure that our activities are harmonized.
Our strategy is based on military-to-military efforts to enhance the security capability of our African partners. In many engagements with African leaders during my time as commander, United States Africa Command, and previously as deputy commander, U.S. European Command, the consistent message they gave me is their intent for American -- for African nations to provide for their own security. Most welcome our assistance in reaching their goals for security forces that are legitimate and professional, have the will and means to dissuade, deter and defeat transnational threats, perform with integrity, and increasingly able to support international peace efforts.
We work as a part of the overall United States government effort. We work closely with the Department of State, the chiefs of mission and country teams, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Departments of Treasury, Commerce, Homeland Security, Agriculture and others doing work on the continent. And like Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, I fully support enhancements to the capabilities of our interagency partners.
Similarly, we reach out to international partners, including Europeans, international organizations, nongovernmental organizations, private enterprise and academia. Their perspectives on the situation in Africa are very valuable. U.S. Africa Command is involved in military training, education, sustainment and logistic support, among other activities throughout our area of responsibility.
The Combined Joint Task Force Horn of Africa, headquartered in Djibouti, conducts training, education and civil-military assistance that helps prevent conflict and promote regional cooperation among nations of Eastern Africa. Operation Enduring Freedom Trans Sahara is a military component of the Department of State's counterterrorism partnership with North and West African nations. Africa Endeavor is an annual communications interoperability exercise that this year will include 23 African nations.
We support the State Department's Africa Contingency Operations Training and Assistance Program, that roughly trains 20 battalions of peacekeepers per year. The peacekeepers have been deployed on United Nations and African Union missions across the continent. Recently, we helped the Rwandans deploy some of their heavy equipment to the U.N. mission in Darfur. Continuing deployment of the African Partnership Station provides training to the navies and coast guards of maritime nations in the Gulf of Guinea and in Eastern Africa, helping them better secure their own territorial waters.
Given the lack of infrastructure within Africa and the island nations, our sustainment infrastructure, forward operating sites and en-route infrastructure are vital. I endorse upgrade projects supporting these key infrastructure nodes. The enduring presence at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti makes possible our engagement in East Africa and other parts of the continent and supports our U.S. strategic goals in that area of the world.
It is, indeed, my honor to serve with the uniformed and civilian men and women of the Department of Defense, as well as our intra-agency teammates, who are making a difference on the continent every day. Their dedicated efforts are testament to the spirit and determination of the American people and our commitment to contributing to the well- being and security of our nation and the people of Africa.
Again, thank you for this opportunity. Thank you for your support. And I'm -- stand ready to participate in the hearing.
REP. SKELTON: Thank you very much, General Ward.
General Mattis, you said that irregular warfare should become a core competency for our military. History tells us that a country -- in particular, our country -- prepares for the last war. How assured are you that irregular warfare will be with us in future conflicts?
GEN. MATTIS: Mr. Chairman, I'm absolutely certain that irregular warfare will be with us for future conflicts. We need to only look back to last summer's Russian incursion into Georgia, where we saw many irregular aspects in that war. Their combat units even had irregular forces in front of them as they went into the breakaway republics.
I think, too, that our study of the second Lebanon war shows how this hybrid threat -- and it's being watched all around the world -- and they recognize they cannot take us on at 15,000 feet right now; they cannot take us on on the high seas; they don't want to take on the U.S. Army in open-desert mechanized warfare. But there is an area where we're not superior, and we've seen the enemy play to those positions.
I think that the paradox of war is that America at this point in history cannot abrogate any aspect of the conflict spectrum. By that I mean the enemy will gravitate to the area that they perceive to be our weakness. So we cannot give up conventional capability; we cannot give up nuclear superiority. But we must develop irregular if we want to checkmate the enemy. It is a balanced approach, as I think Secretary Gates has articulated very well, sir.
REP. SKELTON: Thank you. Let me ask both the admiral and -- Admiral Stavridis and General Renuart about Mexico. There's a great deal of concern in and out of the news media about that country and the drug-related violence that is there. Number one, describe how serious it is through each of your eyes. And number two, what can America do to help?
GEN. RENUART: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think it -- the media has given us many examples of how difficult that challenge is for the government of Mexico. President Calderon is courageously leading an effort. He has asked his military to play a principal role in that, and they are doing so.
And I would use as an example: The presence of thousands of military into Juarez -- the city that we've seen so many of the murders recorded over the last year and certainly in the last couple months -- that presence has made a difference. We've begun to see the violence settle. And I think that's an indicator of the seriousness that President Calderon takes with respect to action here.
In terms of the drug challenges, Admiral Stavridis mentioned in his opening comments the challenge of the supply side.
He leads -- or hosts in his headquarters, JIATF South -- I say in his headquarters -- in his organization there, located in Key West -- that is an interagency process to get at the supply side. We participate directly with his staff. The Mexican government also participates directly with his staff.
So I think the opportunity for us to share common operating pictures, share intelligence, share information not only between our headquarters but with our Mexican friends is improving every day.
Finally, I'd say that there certainly is the potential, as we've seen in the -- in many reports, for some of that violence to spill over. There is a relationship between organized gangs in the United States and the drug cartels in Mexico. Our role in DOD is a small one, but it is to support law enforcement as they might need that along the border.
I think the problem is real. Mexico is engaged. The United States is actively trying to support and assist Mexico in any way that might be helpful, and we have a very good relationship with the Mexican military in that regard.
Jim?
ADM. STAVRIDIS: Sir, I would echo what General Renuart said. I would add, as I mentioned in my opening statement, I think there's a demand side component to this. If we ask what we can do to help Mexico, we could work on anything that reduces demand here in the United States -- not really our lane in the Department of Defense but, I think, worth mentioning in the context.
Secondly, sir, I would enlarge Gene's comments to include Central America, Haiti and the Dominican Republic. The Merida Initiative, which I support, I know Gene supports as well, looks at all of those regions as a whole. In the end, this is a supply chain. We have to understand it, we have to reverse engineer it, and we have to help kill it. Doing so will require international partners, as well as our interagency work together.
Thank you.
REP. SKELTON: General Ward, in your opinion, would you describe for us America's national security interest in what you do in the African Command on the African continent, please?
GEN. WARD: Thank you, Chairman. The continent of Africa is an immense geographical domain as well as a huge water space along its borders and its territorial waters. Resources, population, globalization, stability all very firmly point to that part of the world being integrally linked to the security, as well as the continued development, of our country. A stable continent of Africa, with a population approaching 9 million (sic), growing at a rate of 2.4 percent a year, expected to double by 2050, if left unchecked, with the issues of illegal immigration; trafficking of various commodities, from weapons to drugs to people; undeveloped, so that immigration becomes issues for not just the nations of Africa but Europe as well as America; having today -- (audio break from the source).
REP. MCHUGH: (Audio break) -- brave American lives in the now going on six years in Iraq, for example, but nevertheless I think we have to keep reality in context.
I've seen reports in recent days, by organizations who claim they track these kinds of things, who have listed Mexico as a potential failed state, along with Pakistan and such.
How close might Mexico be or not be to being a failed state? How deep a concern do you have in that regard?
GEN. RENUART: Congressman, I certainly am not the expert at defining a failed state. I think there are certain characteristics however that, I guess, I'd say Mexico does not exhibit.
For example, they continue to have a democratically elected government. And they are actively taking on this problem, so that the core of government does not seem to be jeopardized, if you will. Certainly they have a strong trading relationship with the United States. They are our third largest trading partner. That relationship continues. And it's important to both nations.
The Mexican natural resources are significant. Certainly their oil industry continues to help keep the government moving strongly. The economic decline that many of our nations have all suffered is not as significant at this point in Mexico. So many of the indicators, of a very vibrant and active state, continue. I think it is certainly a challenge for the law enforcement aspect of the government.
The drug cartels are certainly involved in a great deal of violence. Much of those, the violent deaths that you've talked about, have been cartel-on-cartel violence. And while that is not -- it should not replace or eliminate our concern, it is an indicator that the cartels are fighting each other for turf and for, if you will, market share.
So I think President Calderon understands that clearly. He has engaged aggressively. He's in the process of revetting his police forces. We've seen successes in places like Juarez, where he has put federal troops on the ground. And I think in our small role, we support the State Department and their efforts with the government.
Certainly the Merida Initiative is a huge demonstration -- (audio break) -- work with our Mexican friends, to allow them to be successful in this effort. We need to continue that kind of support.
Our role is a direct mil-to-mil relationship with the Mexican army and air force and navy. And we do that on a routine basis. So I'm comfortable that this country is really working hard to deal with the challenge.
REP. MCHUGH: Thank you, sir.
Admiral, you mentioned the variety of challenges in your AOR.
And clearly the drug component of that is not insignificant.
But I want to -- I want to talk a bit about Venezuela. I and many others have been deeply concerned about the reported arm (sic) purchases that Hugo Chavez has entered into, particularly with the Russians. It's reportedly 100,000 of the latest-generation AK-47, Russian fighter jets, et cetera, et cetera.
And when you couple those with recent reports of both Venezuela and apparently Cuba offering to bed down Russian long-range strategic bombers and talks of Hezbollah fundraising in Caracas and elsewhere, we wonder what to make of this very murky soup. I wonder if you could just put your own perspective on the national-security threats that Hugo Chavez's arms purchases, coupled with his seeming friendship in places like Iran and the support of Hezbollah -- or certainly the blind eye towards Hezbollah -- might mean for this committee and for your AOR.
ADM. STAVRIDIS: Sir, thank you. Whenever I speak of Venezuela, I like to begin by pointing out that the United States and Venezuela have enjoyed an extremely good relationship for about 150 years. Over the recent past, there has been some political disagreement between the two countries. And to some degree that's the nature of democracy and all the democracies in the Americas.
Today there is only one dictatorship, and that's in Cuba. So every other country is a democracy, and democracies have a tendency to disagree with each other about political direction in many cases.
In terms of a national-security threat, I do not believe Venezuela poses a national-security threat to the United States. You're absolutely correct, they've bought about $5 billion in weapons from the Russians over the last four years. They have contracts for at least $20 billion more: high-performance jets, attack helicopters, AK-103s -- the new generation of the AK-47 -- and so forth.
I don't believe that they, however, even with all of that armament, pose a significant threat, because I don't see the commensurate investment in training and people, in building capability to really employ those weapons in a way that would be a threat to the United States of America.
REP. MCHUGH: How about the -- if not the active support, certainly the forbearance of fundraising for terrorist-listed organizations like Hezbollah? Is that at a high level? Or --
ADM. STAVRIDIS: Well, I'm concerned throughout the region of the activities of Hezbollah. And that really runs from the southern cone of South America to the Andean ridge to the Caribbean coast. We see Hezbollah acting throughout the region in proselytizing, fundraising; involved in the drug trade. There's a fair amount to be concerned about with Hezbollah. And I'd like to provide that for the record in -- and give you some specifics.
REP. MCHUGH: Yes, I'd appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, I'm going to yield back, but I would say, for the record, this is an area that I know leaders, as we have here today, are focused on and concerned about. But I think it would behoove all of us on this committee if we had the opportunity to delve into that a bit more deeply, perhaps in closed session. But it's an important development that needs our urgent attention.
With that, I'd yield back, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REP. SKELTON: Well, thank you, Mr. McHugh.
Mr. Taylor.
REP. GENE TAYLOR (D-MS): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all these gentlemen for being here.
Very quickly, General Mattis, your quote was something to the point of the enemy will gravitate to our weaknesses. Would you say it's a fair assessment that the enemy gravitated to IEDs and underbody explosions to the flat-bottom humvees in Iraq, as one example of that?
GEN. MATTIS: Yes, sir.
REP. TAYLOR: And therefore, again, using the media, using computers, told the whole world that we have a vulnerability to attack from underneath from flat-bottom vehicles?
GEN. MATTIS: Sir, the attacks make even our heaviest tanks vulnerable. I would not confine it to the flat bottoms. That is one aspect of it, but in fact war is a constant game of give-and-take. You know this, sir.
REP. TAYLOR: General, the --
GEN. MATTIS: And I think as we adapt to the flat-bottom attack, they will adapt, and it's just the normal heave and ho of war.
REP. TAYLOR: Again, using your quote, using our experience in Iraq, I would certainly hope that you would weigh in as we're making the decision on the expeditionary fighting vehicle, that we -- at -- before we build it, make it resistant to mines, and not after the fact. And that's a very real debate going on right now, and I would hope, using your quote, that, you know, we could use that to our advantage.
General Renuart, I happen to live in coastal Mississippi. NORTHCOM was nowhere to be found after Katrina. That's water under the bridge.
Well, let's take a similar circumstance -- and God forbid, I don't want anything to happen to Pennsylvania, but I'm only using them as an example, because a large percentage of their Guard is in Iraq right now -- two simultaneous horrible events happen in Pennsylvania, one in Pittsburgh, one in Philadelphia. They don't have hospitals. They don't have electricity. They don't have food distribution. What are the resources at your disposal now that we've learned the hard way -- let's start with Philadelphia. Could -- are you in a position to contact the CNO and say, "I want an amphibious assault ship and that floating hospital as close as Philadelphia as you can get right now"?
GEN. RENUART: Congressman, I will tell you -- short answer -- absolutely yes.
REP. TAYLOR: You have -- okay. So you are the guy --
GEN. RENUART: I am the guy, and in fact today I have an amphibious ready group that is available to me.
It is -- we keep one on the East Coast, one on the West Coast. They're doing other training missions, but they are identified for homeland security and homeland defense response, should that be required. And I have the authority from the secretary to ask and move those.
Similarly, the hospital ship, although she will be headed to Jim's world here in the south to do some great humanitarian work, but if she is available, absolutely.
But I'll also tell you --
REP. TAYLOR: If I may, sir.
GEN. RENUART: Yeah?
REP. TAYLOR: Okay, one of the Seabee battalions is home. We won't say which one. You are in a position to say, I need you to go to Pittsburgh and start building places for people to berth in?
GEN. RENUART: Again, Congressman, absolutely.
REP. TAYLOR: And General, the reason I'm saying this is I think yours is the most -- we have the least understanding of your command, and I want to give you this opportunity to clear that up, because, you know, again, I've sat in this room for a long time. I am convinced something bad is going to happen on American soil. As good a job as you do, somebody's going to get through.
And I think the point that we need -- the American people need to know is that you are the guy who's going to respond.
GEN. RENUART: Congressman, I appreciate that. And I, too, share your view that we have to be prepared because something untoward will happen, whether it's man-made or natural disaster. And we are the DOD command. We partner, as you know, with the National Guard. We are --
REP. TAYLOR: Let's get a clarification. What is your authority with the Guard?
GEN. RENUART: Congressman, the first authority with the Guard, as you know, is with -- the governor will order those forces it needs into place. We have twice a day joint ops and planning meetings with the National Guard Bureau so that we integrate responses so that we don't duplicate and we complement each other in each event.
But certainly, in this case, the governor of Pennsylvania will want to have and should have access to those National Guardsmen. As you said, many are deployed under the Emergency Management Assistance Compact. Additional Guardsmen can come from other states.
We will also be in a position to support. And we do that in conjunction with our friends in FEMA.
And as you mentioned, an event occurs in one of those large cities that may be nuclear, biological or chemical, we have today a fully equipped, fully trained, 4,000-plus-person Consequence Management Response Force. It sits on a very short response notice. I've coordinated with Transportation Command for the lift it takes to move that. And if an event occurs in Philadelphia or in Pittsburgh and that capability is needed for the particular unique nature of the circumstance, I can move them and the secretary of Defense is fully supportive of moving them at the direction of the president in there and would be in within 48 hours.
REP. TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, General.
GEN. RENUART: Thank you, sir.
REP. SKELTON: Mr. Bartlett, please.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSCOE BARTLETT (R-MD): Thank you very much.
General Mattis, I would like to join Chairman Taylor in his appeal to you that you take a look at the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. There are options that would provide enormously more protection for our troops there. I would be happy to join you and Chairman Taylor in a discussion of this problem and these options.
Admiral, I was impressed that twice you mentioned the need for reduction of demand on drugs. You mentioned it in your oral testimony. You mentioned it in the answer to one of the questions.
What we're doing, relative to drugs, kind of fits Albert Einstein's definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for a different result.
We're really quite good at eradicating drugs and interdicting them. But it's had no effect on the availability of these drugs in our cities. As a matter of fact, in Philadelphia, I'm sorry, in Baltimore in my state and Philadelphia too, the quantity and quality of drugs was such that we had people dying from overdosing, because the drugs no longer had to be cut for street sale.
So obviously the roughly $3 billion that we spend a year, in Colombia, in eradication and interdictions, has no effect on the availability of drugs in our country. And that's, of course, the reason we do that, to reduce drug used in our country.
Now, I applaud, sir, your concern that we need to spend more effort on education, on reducing demand. If nobody bought drugs, nobody would be selling drugs, would they? And I think we need to have enormously more attention, on reducing the demand for drugs, because obviously we're not going to reduce the availability of drugs. We've tried that, over and over again, and it's not working. We just have to own up to that.
General Mattis, you mentioned that the enemy gravitates to our weakness. And Chairman Taylor mentioned the potential weakness of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.
There's another weakness that really concerns me. And it's a growing weakness. We continue to field weapons systems that have little or no EMP protection. And every one of our potential enemies, in their open literature and in their war games, mention the use of EMP as an early event in any conflict with us.
The EMP Commission interviewed Russian generals, who told us that the Soviets had developed, and they obviously have, EMP weapons, enhanced weapons that would release 200 kilobolts per meter at the center. That is 100 kilobolts per meter at the margins. If that's true, sir, we never have built or tested anything to that level of EMP protection.
Why do we keep fielding these weapons systems that will not be available to us when we really need them? We don't need them for wars like Iraq and Afghanistan? We'll really need them against a peer. And they won't be useful for us, because the first thing he will do is an EMP laydown.
Why do we keep investing billions of dollars in these systems that have little or no EMP protection, therefore little or no utility in a war with one of our peers? Why do we keep doing this?
GEN. MATTIS: I cannot give you a good answer, sir. I can speculate. I think for some period of time, there was a hope that this nuclear issue was going to go away. I think we saw some turning away from keeping focused on it.
I will add that any concern about that, in the recent past, has been taken care of by the U.S. forces but not when it comes to the acquisition.
I don't have a good answer for you, other than to say that I believe that now, thinking the unthinkable is no longer off limits, and we will work it. I don't have a specifically satisfactory answer for you, sir.
REP. BARTLETT: Several years ago I called my friend Tom Clancy, who has done several events for me. He had an EMP scenario in one of his books, and I knew he did very good research, and I asked him about EMP. He said, "If you read my book, you know all I know. Let me refer you" -- in his words -- "to the smartest man hired by the U.S. government." And that was a Dr. Lowell Wood in Lawrence Livermore in California. In those days we didn't have cell phones, so I paged him. And I thought he was in California; an hour later he was sitting at my desk in my office because he was here in Washington.
Lowell says that the reason that we don't address this is because it's just too hard. We don't want to face it and so we ignore it. You think that's true?
GEN. MATTIS: Sir, I'll tell you, the physics of the problem is probably make going to the moon look easy. So I think he's probably got a good point. And when you talk about hard, you're talking about enormous cost. And in some cases -- in, I think, most cases, we have not even done the R&D that allows us to look at acquiring systems that have the capability. In other words, we still have to figure out how to do it. But we're going to have to get on with it, sir. Again, I will not defend where we're at right now. I cannot.
REP. BARTLETT: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REP. SKELTON: Thank you. Now we call on Dr. Snyder.
REP. VIC SNYDER (D-AR): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for being here today.
General Ward, I'm going to address my time with you, and first I want to just make a comment. I had to step out while you did your oral statement, but in your written statement you referred to the -- having a brief discussion about the overfishing off the coast of Africa. And it -- and, you know, I applaud you for including that in a national-security discussion about what's going on, because poverty and hunger and lack of economic vitality are huge national-security threats. And I think probably most of us don't realize what the potential degradation of the fish off the coast of Africa means for a lot of nations and a lot of people and for stability in Africa.
On page four of your written statement, you say the following: Quote, "the greatest security threats facing Africa include enduring conflicts, illicit trafficking, territorial disputes, rebel insurgencies, violent extremists, piracy and illegal immigration." The first one on that list was enduring conflicts, and would you describe for me, please, what you see the role of AFRICOM as in these enduring conflicts?
And I want to mention two, specifically, as examples. We have this ongoing dispute between Eritrea and Ethiopia, on that border. That -- while there has not been active military engagement for some time now of any major amount, none of us would be surprised if it were to flare up again at some point. It is an unresolved border and an unresolved war. The second one is the several -- well, couple- decades-long, now, dispute between the Polisario -- they're based on the Moroccan-Algerian border -- and the kingdom of Morocco.
When you look at those two threats, what you've referred to as enduring conflicts, what do you see as the role of AFRICOM in disputes like those?
GEN. WARD: Thank you, sir. First, the acknowledgement of the threats to the environment, I appreciate your noting that. To be sure, these threats to those resources that could be made available to a people of a nation to increase their lot, to increase their well- being: critical; very, very important. And when it doesn't occur where they are, then they will seek it elsewhere.
With respect to the enduring conflicts, they range, as you've noted. They are the borders, Eritrea, Djibouti, the borders in North Africa with respect to the Western Sahara; also, the central part of the continent. They are in the Congo.
As it comes to the role that we play, the command, the military role, you know, where there are political agreements that talk to, one, creating stability, that talk to, two, the need to create a force, a security force, that would in fact help the legitimate government of a nation provide that control or that stability, where there is a lack of training, a lack of equipment, a lack of interoperability, a lack of working effectively to some degree with its neighbors where, again, there is the political will to do so, and the determination is made that we in fact can play a role in increasing the capacity to address those deficiencies, that's where we as a command, a military command, come in to take a role, to increase the capacity of those nations to do such.
For example, as the situation in the Congo was -- (audio break) -- and interoperability deficiencies were noted, our ability to work with those nations -- Uganda, Rwanda, The Democratic Republic of The Congo, Central African Republic to a degree -- to help information sharing, to help with equipment interoperability, providing sometimes needed logistics support and enhancements, to cause those governments to be able to have a better sense of what goes on inside their borders against insurgencies or the rebel factions, and then be able to work in some degree of commonality to address them.
But again, those actions that we take, sir, come on the heels of a policy decision having been taken by the nations themselves; obviously, our national policy direction that supports the activities that we would in fact do to help in those instances.
REP. SNYDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REP. SKELTON: I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Thornberry.
REP. MAC THORNBERRY (R-TX): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Mattis, as someone who argued for the creation of Joint Forces Command 10, 12 years ago, I've become concerned over time that the command has -- that the focus on the future, which was part of the reason to create that command, has faded over time.
And I recently read in a book by Dr. Andrew Krepinevich where he said that, unfortunately, Joint Forces, established to identify emerging threats and support for the military's transformation to address them, has progressively moved away from that mission, since Millennium Challenge '02. And as you know, Millennium Challenge '02 was a war game that was stopped in the middle because the good guys were losing, and they had to rearrange the deck in order to prevent an embarrassment.
Dr. Krepinevich makes three suggestions to help refocus Joint Forces Command on the future, and I'd like to get your reaction to them.
One is, he thinks your -- the tenure for your position needs to be lengthened, because nobody can occupy that job in the normal rotation and make the real difference with that futuristic orientation that you really need, because sometimes that goes countercultural to the services.
Secondly, he says Joint Forces ought to have a seat on the JROC.
And thirdly, he says Joint Forces ought to have a seat on the Defense Acquisition Board, so that you're there with a voice when acquisition decisions are made.
What's your reaction to those three suggestions?
GEN. MATTIS: Thank you, sir.
In terms of our future focus, it is a balancing act. I'll be the first to admit it. However, I will tell you that the joint training that goes on right now is critical to making the Goldwater-Nichols -- the spirit of Goldwater-Nichols into reality. The providing of forces of prepared joint forces going out is so smooth that I spend very little of my time on it. There's a small section of the command that when the secretary of Defense approves a request for forces from one of the geographic commanders, it goes very quickly -- not a lot of distraction there is my point. Most of our effort -- most of my effort with Joint Forces Command goes into the future.
In regard to lengthening the commander's tour, I think that there is a -- if I remember right, around 50 percent of the total command, 27 percent of the command has got government contract or -- contractors, civilian contractors. They provide continuity. There's also a fair amount of continuity from government civilians. So although the commander's tenure is one consideration, and I wouldn't necessarily refute or come up with an argument against it, I don't think it's as bad as thinking that everything stops when a commander comes and goes. I -- some of us may think the world begins and ends with us, but I think the reality is, the command functions quite well.
We do have to get some institutionalization of this focus on the future that perhaps disappeared under the urgency of the active operations overseas. I think we've got that back and we're going the right direction, and we're open to any kind of assessment that wants to come down and look at us on that.
On the JROC seat, I'll tell you right now, sir, I can walk into the JROC any time. Any combatant commander can. And I exercise that when necessary. But I do not feel inhibited, plus I can always do an end run on them, to put it bluntly ,and walk into the deputy secretary of Defense's office, where I have a very close working relationship. So I am not inhibited by not having a formal seat there. I can be in any meeting, and I can work with the deputy secretary and the vice chairman if there's something I think is going off the rail.
As far as the Defense Acquisition Board, there's an awful lot of folks who get involved in acquisition today, almost to the point that we've paralyzed the process. If I can bring something -- bring an advantage to it, I'm more than willing to do so. Generally speaking, I would bring one more voice that's saying something already being considered, but if I think it's not being considered, I can always insert myself there.
I am not -- as some of you know, I'm not shy about inserting myself where I think I need to be, although there are some points that have been made by Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Taylor that I recognize, too, that in the normal scheme of things -- this is what you're talking about -- in the normal scheme of things, I may not be in the room.
But if it comes down to command and control, I am in the room. That is my job. And on the other things, I somewhat defer to those who have the Title X responsibilities, because I eventually (employ them ?).
I hope that addresses your question, sir.
REP. THORNBERRY: It's helpful. And I am very grateful you are where you are, because I think you have a real chance to focus the command more where it needs to be focused. And I'd hope to visit with you more about that.
Just briefly, Admiral Stavridis, you talk about your mantra of being joint, international, interagency, public, private. One of the suggestions is, as we grapple with this interagency issue, is that we ought to use the structure of the combatant commands to be the structure for the U.S. government in bringing all of these different agencies and instruments of power together. What -- just briefly, what lessons have you learned in your command that might be useful as all of us try to figure out how to get all of the tools in the toolbox available for us in all parts of the world?
ADM. STAVRIDIS: Well, first and foremost, I think it's important that we don't militarize our foreign policy. That would be a tremendous mistake. State Department must do diplomacy. AID must do development. Defense must do defense. The trick is how do we do all of that in a way that we are mutually supportive.
And in general, in my region, I find that it's very much State in the lead on defense, AID in the lead on development, and where we can try and be helpful from Defense, we try to be.
I believe that it's vitally important that everything we do ought to go through a filter that says, have we approached this in an international way? Have we avoided unilateralism? Have we taken the transnational approach? Because so many of the challenges we face in this region, in the Americas, in this home we share together are, in fact, transnational.
Secondly, the interagency has to work together. I think we've come a fair way at doing that over the last five years, but I think we have a distance to go. I think there's a role for the private sector in all of this. And we're exploring how linkages can be established between government, private sector, in the defense arena, for example.
The other part of the whole equation that's so important is strategic communications. It's communicating these ideas in ways -- particularly in South America and the Caribbean, Central America -- in ways that show respect for sovereignty, take an approach of equality with the other nations in the region and don't, in any sense, come at the problem with a sense that we have all the answers, because we don't.
So however we structure our organizations for national security in the future, those would be the points I would submit are the valuable ones that we've learned at Southern Command. I'll leave it to others to decide what the best structure is.
REP. SKELTON: Thank the gentleman.
Ms. Davis?
REP. SUSAN DAVIS (D-CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all of you for being here and certainly for your extraordinary service to our country.
This really follows up on the question that you just answered, Admiral. And perhaps the rest of you would like to expand. The House Foreign Affairs Committee is holding a hearing today, as you may know, which is exploring the Department of Defense's role in foreign assistance. And there are concerns, of course, that the military's role has contributed in some ways to the weakening of the State Department's more traditional leadership role in managing U.S. foreign policy. And, you know, it's a lot of what you've just responded to, sir -- and I appreciate that. I wonder if there are -- there's really more to say in this area, because to a certain extent, you know, it's not clear that military activities are always vetted through the country team or understood. And how are we really, on the ground, getting it done? I understand the goals, but what more should we be doing? How should we focus on this in a different way?
ADM. STAVRIDIS: If I could quickly just add to what I said before, in a practical sense, we take all of the military-to-military engagement that we do, any activity that's done in Southern Command is always vetted through the country team. And then we take our larger -- what we call theater security cooperation plan, and we bring that here to State, to AID. We show it to them with complete transparency. We take all of their changes.
You are absolutely right: What happens on the ground in a country has to be the responsibility of the ambassador in that country, and I'm very confident we're taking that approach fully at SOUTHCOM. We'll continue to do so.
GEN. RENUART: Ma'am, if I could, I'd like to add -- first, echo Jim. Our numbers of countries that we deal with are much smaller, but certainly Canada and Mexico are partners that we work with very actively. And again, those -- you have to have diplomacy in the lead when you talk about the relations with foreign nations that we deal with each day. It is critical to have a partnership there, because so much -- and I'll speak from my experience with Mexico -- so much of what is done within the country is done by the military. That's the nature of their structure. So there is a natural relationship mil-to- mil that complements the ambassador's program in the country. And I think that's critical.
I'd like to add one twist here in the homeland, because we have a unique inter-agency process in our headquarters that is a little different in that we deal with the 49 nations, three territories and the District.
And so that requires a bit of a different private-sector and inter- agency approach.
We have 45 federal agencies that have assigned senior individuals to our headquarters. We incorporate them into our ops and our plans and our intelligence and that sort of thing. It allows a level of partnership in an inter-agency way that I'm very pleased and proud of. It allows us to be a contributing partner to each of those agencies.
So the inter-agency approach, the whole of government approach, has got to be the best way -- is the best way -- has got to be the way of the future for us. And I think there are some models that can be helpful in other places. Thank you.
REP. DAVIS: Thank you. When you are working with our country teams, what role does the military necessarily play? How would you assess the public opinion towards the United States in your areas? I mean, how do you merge some of that understanding, and what effect does it have on your operations?
GEN. WARD: I think, Ms. Davis, two things. First, I certainly echo all that's been said by Admiral Stavridis and General Renuart. We work very closely with the country teams, but not just in implementing the plans; also, in developing the plans. From the outset, the country teams are involved to include the public diplomacy aspects of those, because we rely on the public diplomacy section with -- inside the embassies to help us assure that the effects that we want to create are understood by the populations whom we are trying to serve.
And so that -- that relationship is absolutely critical. It is cradle-to-grave, from the beginning of a plan to its execution, fully including, and in fact taking the lead from, the embassies' action plans insofar as how what we do supports that overall process there within the country.
REP. DAVIS: If I could shift very quickly just to Mexico for a second, because there is a great deal of concern that some of the weapons being smuggled into Mexico are coming from the U.S., to what extent is that true and a problem? And should there be greater restrictions, so that we can get a better handle on that?
GEN. RENUART: Well, ma'am, it's for Congress to decide on restrictions, but I would say that certainly the quantity of weapons that have been captured or uncovered in Mexico, that have been used by the cartels, are predominantly either U.S.-made or trafficked through the United States dealers -- not necessarily flowing through our borders, but there have been illicit dealers that have been working that.
The experts in our law-enforcement agencies really are working this very hard -- not truly a military role, to be involved in that; although, interestingly, we have worked with the military in Mexico to help share that information with our law-enforcement folks. It is a real problem, and we have to pay attention to it.
REP. DAVIS: Thank you.
REP. SKELTON: Thank the gentlelady.
The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Kline.
REP. JOHN KLINE (R-MN): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being here, for your service. I want to continue with the discussion about Mexico, General Renuart, if I could for a minute. In the news, the president has announced that he is sending federal agents to the border for reinforcement.
And as you've heard here and, I know, you know very well, there is fear that the violence is spilling over, from Ciudad Juarez and Nuevo Laredo and others, into the United States, in both those cases, into Texas.
Periodically in this body, we debate and sometimes vote on whether or not we should be using U.S. military forces, particularly the U.S. Army, on the border. I wonder if you would address that very briefly to the wisdom of such a think and/or the practicality of such a thing.
GEN. RENUART: Yes, sir, I would be happy to.
I think, first, militarizing our border should not be our approach at this point. We have a number of agencies who have that role and responsibility. There certainly is some modest assistance that DOD might be able to provide. And I think we ought to be in a position to provide that, should it be requested.
I do believe that there is a challenge, with the potential that violence south of the border could spill over. You've seen, I'm sure, media reports of additional kidnappings or increased kidnappings in Arizona, for example. But the military really has the role to provide assistance to law enforcement.
Certainly the National Guard has some legal authority to assist law enforcement in their role. And, but as the president has mentioned, Secretary Napolitano has mentioned, Secretary Gates has mentioned, we ought not to immediately move towards militarization of the border. But we ought to look at a collaborative effort. And I think the planning efforts are ongoing now, to come up with that kind of a solution.
REP. KLINE: Thank you. And I agree wholeheartedly. We should not be moving to militarize the border. There are other ways that we ought to address that. The military can and has provided assistance. But the notion of putting armed infantry on the border is probably not a good one. And I just wanted to get that from you. And I'm delighted to see that you concur.
General Ward, I want to pick up on two things, if the time allows.
One, you talked about the value of United Nations forces and African Union forces. And I know you can reflect back to a number of years ago, when we were much younger and in fact in Africa, and looking at U.N. forces hunkered down in Mogadishu, for example, and not venturing off the airport.
And so I trust that either African Union or United Nations forces, and I know that you're involved in the training of forces, I gather from your earlier answer. You're saying that that's not the case now or at least that those forces are more useful and more effective than in those long years past. Is that correct?
GEN. WARD: Thank you for that, sir. Two things.
First, it's a function of how well trained and equipped they are and that clearly even today, there are variances in that training and that equipment and then thirdly -- correction, secondly -- what authorities they then have, to do a mission or not. x x not.
So I think it's a combination of those two factors, their training and equipping, and then what authorities that they have. When those are aligned, then their role can, in fact, make a difference. And there are instances where that in fact is the case. It's not absolute. And so therefore, I think to the degree that we can be of an assist in helping to provide trained and equipped forces from whatever contributing nation that would provide forces to those formations -- either United Nations-sponsored formations or African Union-sponsored formations -- then we have a role, I think, in helping those forces be better trained and equipped to the degree, and then clearly authority commensurate with whatever mission they're assigned as they are employed.
REP. KLINE: All right. Thank you.
I see my time is about to expire. I'll yield back, Mr. Chairman.
REP. SKELTON: The chair thanks the gentleman.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Kissell, for five minutes.
REP. LARRY KISSELL (D-NC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank the gentlemen for being here today. A couple questions real quickly.
Admiral, you talked about we had this large joint force, 22 countries participated. Without naming them all, four or five of the major countries that we would look at as being stronger allies with us and that participated there.
ADM. STAVRIDIS: Sir, I'll provide the entire list for the record, of course, but Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Chile, Panama. I could go on and on. It's literally every country that has a significant- size military force in the Americas, with the exception of Venezuela, and Cuba, obviously.
REP. KISSELL: Okay. And I was looking for was it the larger countries or, you know, some of the smaller nations.
ADM. STAVRIDIS: Sir, it's both. It's both. And I'll just make the point, last summer we had a Brazilian admiral taking command of forces on one side of the Panama Canal, and a Chilean admiral taking command of forces on the other side of the canal. It was extremely gratifying to see the nations working together.
REP. KISSELL: And General Ward, along the same lines in Africa, the military-to-military contact we have, what are some of the nations of Africa that seem to be the strongest in working -- willing to work with us?
GEN. WARD: Sir, I think if we look at those nations that contribute forces to the peacekeeping missions, from Uganda to Rwanda, South Africa, Nigeria, there are several that, in fact, have a capability. They need assistance logistically predominantly to either deploy to one of these far-off places, to sustain themselves in one of those far-off places, but -- (audio break) -- many of the African nations to, in fact, do what many of them say they want to do; that is, provide for their own security.
And so the level of -- Burundi is another example. Small, out just from a very severe internal conflict, but realizing it can play a role in the future and attempting to do so. So the range is quite broad, as Admiral Stavridis mentioned. But again, most -- many lack capacity, typically in the logistics area.
Manpower typically is not an issue. We work with them to help increase the health situation within those nations; as an example, our program for HIV/AIDS, to complement the PEPFAR to our Defense HIV/AIDS prevention program to help them get enough people that can in fact then be trained and then to deploy into a peacekeeping (set ?). So those nations are, in fact -- numbers are there.
REP. KISSELL: What would you say in terms of our outreach to the countries of Africa? What portion of Africa are we reaching? Half? Three-quarters? How far out does that outreach go?
GEN. WARD: I think if I were to -- and I will get a more precise number to you, but we are reaching nations throughout the continent -- North, East, Southwest and Central Africa. We have probably 35 nations now -- just hazard that guess -- of the 53 on the continent that we have active programs with, to some degree, as we work with them and the various either counterterror programs, programs to help in their transformation of their militaries and also in just basic logistic support as they participate in U.N.- or AU-sponsored peacekeeping operations.
REP. KISSELL: And General Renuart, I know I haven't got much time left. And one of the first -- I think it was the first hearing and being a new congressman that I came to was Former Senator Graham gave a report on weapons of mass destruction proliferation, said we weren't winning that fight, gave recommendations, had some predictions about what could happen within the borders of the United States in the next few years. Do you all have any involvement in trying to implement the recommendations that commission made?
GEN. RENUART: Sir, I think -- I will -- I'll have to say, I'm not as familiar with the specific recommendations. However, I will tell you that we have taken a number of actions specifically regarding this challenge in the last three or four years to include growing and building and equipping a consequence management response force that can allow us to respond to a weapon of mass destruction. We have also increased our capability to help prevent loss of, for example, a nuclear weapon or a nuclear device.
So I believe we're moving down the road in that direction, but if you have a specific area, I'd be happy to mention that.
REP. KISSELL: Well, I would say, you know, he -- the commission has some specific suggestions how we could, you know, avoid this happening and also towards the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. And I would simply say that, you know, it would probably be good for everybody that has, you know, some time in this to really look at that commission's report.
Thank you, sir.
GEN. RENUART: And Mr. Kissell, I'll get the report and provide you an answer for the record.
Chairman.
REP. SKELTON: Mr. Wittman, please.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB WITTMAN (R-VA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for joining us today and thank you so much for your service to our nation.
Admiral, in January of 2009, the Navy announced its decision to home port a nuclear aircraft carrier at Mayport Naval Station in Florida. And Mayport's never home-ported a nuclear-powered carrier and based on previous BRAC decisions no longer has a nearby air wing at Cecil Field to support carrier operations.
And admiral, as the COCOM for this region, I wanted to know, were you consulted in this decision? And if so, when were you consulted and what was your position? And if you were not, are you aware of anyone within Southern Command that was consulted to provide strategic input into this decision?
ADM. STAVRIDIS: Sir, as you know, it's a decision made by -- well, a recommendation made by the chief of naval operations, Gary Roughead, to the secretary of the Navy, goes to the secretary of Defense. So I don't in any way participate in those conversations in a -- in any formal sense, no.
REP. WITTMAN: As a follow-up, in April 2008 the CNO announced the reestablishment of the 4th Fleet in Mayport, and the commander of the 4th Fleet, as you know, also serves as the commander of U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command, the Navy's component command of SOUTHCOM.
And let me read you a recent statement from former SECNAV Winter at the Current Strategy Forum in June of 2008. And he said, "The 4th Fleet demonstrates the Navy's commitment to the region by creating presence in support of combined training operations, humanitarian operations and disaster response. And this can be done without using a carrier battle group. We should also remember that it's sometimes more effective to have a smaller combatant that can access many of the littoral areas where we need to go. Smaller platforms are also more suitable for training, as they are more compatible with the navies with which we will be operating. We must balance our present requirements with the missions and threats we are likely to face in the given region."
And my question is this: given the fact that we know many of the existing facilities in Mayport -- excuse me, existing frigates in Mayport will be retired soon, and given the unique types of missions we encounter in the 4th Fleet's operating areas, such as counter-drug operations, theater support cooperation, military-to-military exercises and training, do you agree with Secretary Winter's assessment that the 4th Fleet can accomplish its objectives without a carrier battle group? Or do you believe that home-porting a nuclear carrier at Mayport is necessary to provide the right mix of assets to support the U.S. 4th Fleet?
ADM. STAVRIDIS: Well, I'm not going to address whether or not the 4th Fleet -- anything about home-porting, because I really don't have anything to do with home-porting. And the way it works for a COCOM, sir, is we just go to the joint staff and we tell them what kind of ships we need. And where they come from's really not my concern. They could come from Mayport, they can come from Norfolk, they could come from San Diego. A lot of the ships that work for me come from San Diego. So in terms of where ships are home-ported, that's really just not in my purview.
In terms of what kinds of ships do we use in Southern Command, we are far more likely to use frigates, large-deck amphibs, hospital ships, innovative, high-speed ships. Those are what we are more likely to use. But I can't rule out ever using any particular kind of ship. But I agree with Secretary Winter -- it is more likely that we'd use the type of ships he describes and I just mentioned.
REP. WITTMAN: Okay. Very good.
And finally, the Navy identified strategic dispersal considerations -- consistencies -- with the Navy's fleet response plan and operational readiness as the justification for its decision to home-port a carrier at Mayport. In the Navy's decision document, the record of the decision, however, failed to provide any real detail on why strategic dispersal considerations and consistency with the Navy's fleet response plan and operational readiness support moving a carrier.
Can you comment on whether moving a carrier is necessary to accomplish these objectives in the Navy's Fleet Response Plan?
ADM. STAVRIDIS: Sir, I really can't. It's really not in my purview. I'm a joint officer. I could as equally be any one of these colored uniforms. I'm not in the Navy chain of command at the moment. So I would really refer that question to Admiral Roughead. I will take it to Admiral Roughead, and I will ask him to get back to you with an answer to that question.
REP. WITTMAN: Very good. Thank you. Thank you.
I yield back the remnant -- remainder of my time.
REP. SKELTON: I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy.
REP. PATRICK MURPHY (D-PA): (Off mike) -- Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Gentlemen, I joined the Army in 1993 and never had the opportunity to meet a four-star general. So to have four of you here at the same time is pretty awesome, and to spend the last hour and a half with you has been educational.
I want to thank you for your service to our nation. We really do appreciate it.
I wanted to kind of focus my remarks on AFRICOM. Sir, General Ward, my brother is a major in the Air Force. He just came back from a deployment to Djibouti. And you know, appreciate what you're doing in the early stages of what's going on with AFRICOM, and the balance on your mission between obviously short-term counterterrorism operations and then long-term political and economic development.
I wanted to focus and get my arms around the fact that when you look at Africa as a continent and your mission, you know, the United States, China, Western Europe and India combined geographically is smaller than your mission in Africa. And you look at the FY '09 budget for your operations -- $350 million, which is approximately what we spend in Iraq per day.
Is there one function -- you know, when you say, given your balance and the multiple demands on your command, is there one function within your budget that you need more help, that you need more funding and that you think that we should be focusing on as a Congress and as an Armed Services Committee?
GEN. WARD: Well, Mr. Murphy, thanks very much, and thank you too for your service. I wish I had an opportunity to have met you during those early times in the '90s there. So I appreciate what you've done and appreciate where you are now as well, sir.
I think the -- you know, my command, except for the work that we do -- and we do accomplish counterterror work, to be sure; we do that as a part of a global counterterror effort -- my command's predominant role is in doing our activities to help our partner nations increase their capacity.
It doesn't take a lot to do that. What it takes is something we call persistent and sustained engagement. From the standpoint of our training, our best method of doing that is when our nation's soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines can pair up with these nations who are attempting to transform and do things differently -- given the commitment of those resources in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, very difficult. What we do now is work very, very closely with other potential sources of that type of support -- our National Guard, as well as, as was pointed out, submitting our requirements through the Joint Staff for forces that may be in some period of outside of dwell but not actively employed in the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, to cause that relationship to go on.
Huge continent, so getting things around is a big, big requirement that we have. So our mobility requirements are clearly there as another requirement that we have.
Resources to assist these nations in increasing their littoral -- their maritime safety and security, so to the degree that we can, the sorts of vessels we've talked about here, and again the range is a range that's quite, quite, quite wide from frigates to large deck amphibians. The aircraft carrier; we just had an aircraft carrier visit to South Africa -- first time since apartheid -- this past fall.
So we take all of these as we can to help, one, build the relationships, two, provide some sustained-level security engagement that, two -- that, three -- leads to a capacity increase in our partner nations that is reflective of integrity, that's reflective of legitimacy, that's reflective of military performing, as we would like them to perform, as they wish to perform, in societies where they respect their people, are protective of their people and are -- contribute themselves or act as responsible members of that society.
REP. HEINRICH: Sure.
How is the population of South Africa? How are they toward the aircraft carrier being there? Were they -- I mean, I think back when the USS John Kennedy was in Ireland. And obviously they loved when that ship was there. But how about as far as for the local populace in South Africa?
GEN. WARD: The reaction was very, very positive.
REP. HEINRICH: Terrific.
Let me focus real quick, sir, on -- I also serve on the Intelligence Committee. You look at -- they're real concerned, with Africa, with terrorist organizations especially in Somalia, the Sudan. And I'm trying to get a stranglehold.
What about a potential widespread outbreak of a disease, really a continent-wide outbreak? And obviously what would that do to the, you know, the spilling over to government and everything else?
Is there a focus? Is there a preparation that you need -- that we need to assist there, to counter that possibility?
GEN. WARD: There are, sir. We pay attention to that. The threat of a pandemic, a disease, is very real. And we do pay attention to it. And devoting resources to that is, I think, a very wise investment.
REP. HEINRICH: Thanks, sir.
My time is done. And thanks, Chairman.
REP. SKELTON: Certainly thank the gentleman.
Mr. Hunter.
REPRESENTATIVE DUNCAN HUNTER (R-CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you gentleman, Generals, Admiral.
General Mattis, it's especially good to see you here. I'm just very proud of you, sir, and what you have done. You're truly a warrior leader. And it was great serving under you in Iraq.
Admiral, my first question is for you. Could you talk a little about China and Russia's involvement and how maybe the Russian tentacles are back out there again, where they were receded for quite a while, and how China's there now too, please?
ADM. STAVRIDIS: Yes, sir. Thank you for your service. And thanks to all the veterans. I know there are a lot of veterans -- of the armed forces, the Coast Guard and others -- who serve on this committee. And we're proud of that part of the relationship as well.
Congressman Hunter, as to China, I'm not overly concerned about Chinese activities in the Americas. I believe they're here for economic reasons, to find markets for their products, to obtain raw materials. I think it's part of the general pattern of global trade that's going on.
I do not perceive geopolitical or geostrategic interest. And I don't see a great deal of military to military activity, between the militaries of this region and the Chinese military. We watch it closely. But thus far I'm comfortable with Chinese engagement in the region.
In terms of Russia, much has been made of this recently, I believe stemming from four Russian ships that operated in the Caribbean this past summer. They operated with the Venezuelan navy. They made some port visits in Venezuela, Nicaragua and in Cuba as well as some flights of Russian strategic bombers that came down. My friend General Renuart tracked them very assiduously.
In all cases, as the Russian military forces were operating in this region, we kept track of them. That's our job. But I don't perceive a military threat from Russia in this region, nor do I become overly exercised by their deployments in the region, at least at this stage. They don't pose, in my view, a military threat to the United States.
And Secretary Gates said at his hearing, when he was asked the question, "Hey, maybe next time if they send ships they'll do a port visit in Miami." I think there's (an approach ?) here which ought to be one of recognizing that the Russians have a global navy. It's going to operate around the globe. They have a global air force. It's going to operate around the globe. And in terms of Latin America and the Caribbean, I don't see a military threat from those.
REP. HUNTER: That is good to hear. Thank you. And in the interest of time, let me move along here. Do you see -- or General Renuart -- do you see them taking advantage -- anybody taking advantage of the chaos in Mexico right now? Because the enemy does gravitate to our weakness, and right now Mexico is a weakness, whether or not it's a threat. But do you see other countries operating through Mexico in order to destabilize us?
GEN. RENUART: Mr. Hunter, I -- again, I share Admiral Stavridis's view that neither China nor Russia -- and then in my assessment there's not another country that is -- that is actively working in Mexico to destabilize us. I think certainly there are --
REP. HUNTER: Iranian influence in Mexico? You don't see that?
GEN. RENUART: There is an Iranian presence in Mexico for sure. The government of Mexico is working that themselves. We monitor it. But it's a relatively small presence.
REP. HUNTER: Do they have a stabilizing factor?
GEN. RENUART: I don't see that at this point, no.
REP. HUNTER: So they have a destabilizing.
GEN. RENUART: I'm sorry, I misunderstood what you said.
REP. HUNTER: Oh, I'm sorry.
GEN. RENUART: They do not have a destabilizing effect, that I've seen, at least, at this point.
REP. HUNTER: Thank you very much.
General Mattis, one last question for you, sir. Do you know that there -- that there is no golden hour in Afghanistan right now with the forces that you deploy to Afghanistan?
GEN. MATTIS: Say again the question, sir?
REP. HUNTER: That there is no golden hour -- that's the one hour that you have to get people, after they get hit, back to a facility to get treated.
GEN. MATTIS: Sir, we are -- we are working the deployment of the sufficient helicopter assets to make certain we get it down to a golden hour. There are -- you know the size of the country. You've served there. It is a challenge, but that is our goal.
And the secretary of Defense, I believe, has approved the request for forces that will get us there.
REP. HUNTER: Would the -- you realize that there aren't any Ospreys in Afghanistan? Is that true? There is no Osprey squadron?
GEN. MATTIS: That is correct right now.
REP. HUNTER: Did you know that they just deployed an Osprey squadron with a MEU?
GEN. MATTIS: Yes, sir, I'm aware of that, and that --
REP. HUNTER: Would the Ospreys have made it so that there is a golden hour, if they were deployed to Afghanistan, vice the MEU?
GEN. MATTIS: I'd have to do the time-distance factors to give you a truly accurate statement.
REP. HUNTER: Well, let me say I've done them for you, and they would have. And I was wondering if you had any say whatsoever in having the -- do we not trust the Osprey? Do we not want it in combat? Or are we doing it purely to put it with the U.S. Navy? I understand that they might be going over there in the future, but they aren't there now. And I was wondering if you had any say in that when it came to the deployment of the Osprey.
GEN. MATTIS: Sir, the commitments of the specific helicopter assets going into country will be part of the Marine contingent that the secretary has approved. I don't know what percent of that is Osprey and what is C853, that sort of thing. I can get that answer for you, though.
REP. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, generals, admiral.
GEN. SKELTON: The members will notice that the public affairs -- public relations -- what do you call it? -- the PA system is working much, much better. Complaining does help. You don't have to ask the witnesses nor the members to repeat their questions or their answers.
The gentlelady from New Hampshire.
There are two votes pending. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Davis, will assume the chair upon the return, and the hearing will continue. And gentlemen, we appreciate your patience. In the meantime, we'll call on Ms. Shea-Porter to finish up before the vote.
REP. CAROL SHEA-PORTER (D-NH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you so much for being here, and your service to the country. General Ward, I wanted to ask you about the humanitarian assistance programs on the continent of Africa. I want to know specifically how we're doing in comparison to other countries, such as China. Are they more visible? Do we have a greater visibility? Is it enough? And what are your plans to make sure that the continent of Africa understands what our goals are there and our concerns for them?
GEN. WARD: Thank you, Madame Shea-Porter. Two things: First, the work that we do is work that complements the greater effort being done by our U.S. Agency for International Development. Insofar as our humanitarian assistance effort is concerned, we, working in concert with the chief of mission, the ambassadors, determine those areas that, one, are not being met by any other asset of our government and then, two, support the military capacity of our servicemen and women who have skill sets in those -- in those areas as well.
I think from the standpoint of what others are doing, i.e. nations -- China, India and others -- clearly they are expending great net amount of resources in various humanitarian projects, programs, infrastructure construction, things that we are not matching, things that we are not doing.
REP. SHEA-PORTER: Does that concern you?
GEN. WARD: It concerns me from the standpoint of what the effect of what's being done by others has in the environment and the influence that they have based on that and how that is influencing how those nations who receive that support react and respond to it.
REP. SHEA-PORTER: Well, thank you, General. I'm going to interrupt because of the time, you know. But I think that's exactly the problem that we have so often, that we come late to the game. And so if I'm hearing you correctly, you are concerned, as I think most of us would be, that we might be losing a little bit of the edge that we could have right now where -- if we were more active and the Africans understood that we were a generous, good people concerned about their welfare.
So which country, can I ask you, concerns you in Africa? What other foreign country do you feel is making greater gains than we are in terms of winning hearts and minds?
GEN. WARD: I would have to take a close look at that and get back to you. I think in a general sense the reaction occurs throughout the continent of Africa. In today's economic situation, it's even exacerbated a bit because of the reaction or the reflection that what might have been already provided may be reduced, may not be as prevalent. So I think that is a concern that is there. I think African nations are meeting in Europe in a prelude to the G-20, expressing the same sort of concern about their continued development based on the economic situation. But I'm not sure I could name a single particular country that would concern me more than any other at this point in time.
REP. SHEA-PORTER: So looking at the economic instability and the long history of problems that they're enduring, this might be an opportune time for us to raise our visibility through these kinds of efforts?
GEN. WARD: I think anything that we do makes a difference. And I think it should be not episodic. If we can make it consistent, that's even better, ma'am.
REP. SHEA-PORTER: Okay. And one last question. Thank you.
Operation Objective Voice, getting our message, our ideology across, our goals for democracy. How strong a message are we delivering there right now? Are you able to actually have an impact, or is it still a challenge to communicate like that?
GEN. WARD: I think the assessment that we get and how we see those pieces of information that are transmitted through Operation Objective Voice, when those things appear in other media on the continent, it lets us know that people are paying attention, the Africans are paying attention, and then as we get reactions from our embassies -- because we do that in very close coordination with the embassies and the country teams, their public diplomacy sections -- that we get the assessment that it is making a difference, they are listening, and it does cause them to see what goes on from a perspective that reflects that that we would intend for it to be.
So I think it is making a difference. And our partners, the ambassadors, the country teams, as well as the nations, think it is a very good program that we we are involved in.
REP. SHEA-PORTER: Thank you. And I yield back.
REP. SKELTON: Thank you very much.
We will go vote. We have two votes. And Ms. Davis will assume the chair. And as I read the list, Mr. Larsen, you will be the first batter up.
And again, thank you, gentlemen, for your appearance.
(Recess.)
REP. DAVIS: All right, everybody. Thank you so much for waiting. We appreciate your patience. I'm going to turn to Mr. Larsen.
REPRESENTATIVE RICK LARSEN (D-WA): Thank you. And I was -- it looks like I'm the only one left. Unless someone else shows up, I'll just take about 30 minutes, if you don't mind, Madame Chair. I'll be very -- try to be brief, here.
General Renuart, I want to chat with you about the other border, the U.S.-Canadian border, obviously, and specifically with regards to the 2010 Winter Olympics. It's being held in Vancouver, British Columbia -- obviously in another country, but only about 10 miles north of the U.S.-Canadian border and right across from what is my district. And I know U.S. NORTHCOM, DOD has had a supporting role in some of the preparations for security for the Olympics.
And I just wanted to ask you what you see the role and function of U.S. NORTHCOM with regards to the Olympics and what role you have played and missions you have played.
GEN. RENUART: Thank you, sir. I appreciate that question. Actually, there are -- I have roles in two hats. In my NORAD hat, as you know, we provide for air security and sovereignty for both the U.S. and Canada. We've had a very close relationship with the security -- the Integrated Security Unit formed by the governor of Canada -- government of Canada to ensure that we have the pieces in place to provide for a safe, secure monitoring of the airspace in and around not just Vancouver but, as you know, Seattle. And the traffic and transit across the border back and forth each day, not just with the Olympics, is substantial.
And so we have been involved very actively through our Canadian air defense sector and my Canadian NORAD region to understand the challenges that the Canadian government feels it has with respect to a secure air space. We are partnering with Transport Canada, with the FAA, with our NORAD regions both in the U.S. and in Canada to ensure that we've created procedures that will allow for safe transit, flow of aircraft in and out of the area and to monitor the area -- the air space around that area, low altitude to high, for any potential threats.
In my NORTHCOM hat, as you may know, we have a civil assistance plan that we agreed to between my counterpart in Canada, Canada Command, and Northern Command to allow us to have a framework that will -- that could provide military support should it be requested by either of the governments. And I would use a great example, first, Hurricane Gustav, where really the last evacuees we took out of New Orleans were on a Canadian C-17.
So we've exercised that process already.
With respect to NORTHCOM support, really we sit in a situation where the Canadians clearly need to lead and manage and are managing their support to the Olympics. There may be some unique capabilities that don't reside within the Canadian military. The Canadian government is considering those potential needs and will provide that through a diplomatic note from the ambassador to the U.S. government. And then we are in a position -- and be prepared to provide whatever support may be required.
REP. LARSEN: Thanks. Thanks.
General Mattis, good to see you again, sir. And hopefully the Zags will do a good job tomorrow night, and we're all cheering for them and the Huskies.
Can I ask you some questions about NATO -- your role as NATO transformation -- if that's all right. Last week we had a hearing about the economic crisis and its impact on national security, and one of the themes was that the economic recession globally would have an impact on our allies' ability to meet the -- their own defense-budget needs. And are you -- are you running into a problem as your -- with your NATO hat on, with our allies and their investment into their transformational capabilities?
GEN. MATTIS: Sir, I am. But it is not a late-breaking thing that I can attribute directly to the economic turndown. This was a big enough concern for me when I arrived there at JFCOM Allied Command Transformation a little over a year ago that we started a multiple- futures project in an attempt to try to harvest from the best think tanks in Europe and the -- and North America what are the threats to the populations and come to some agreement on what is the threat to Europe.
Because if we don't come to an agreement on that, then to try and get them to perhaps carry a more equitable share of the load I think was going nowhere. And we continued to see declining defense budgets. So I think there's a larger issue at stake, frankly, and it's something that we're going to have to engage upon through the secretary of State, secretary of Defense -- already going on, by the way. But we need to get the military appreciation of the situation sufficient that the political leadership know what we think is the threat. And we are -- I should report that out to my boss in Brussels, the secretary-general, within the next 30 days, right after the summit.
REP. LARSEN: After the summit. Madame Chair, just two questions for the record, and I'll submit these for the record: One for General Mattis about perhaps a change in who is going to be sitting in as supreme allied commander transformation. There's a possibility that -- possible it might be the French in their new role in NATO. And second, I'll have questions for the record for Generals Ward and Stavridis on 1206 and 1207. And we'll give those to you all relatively soon.
REP. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Lamborn?
REP. DOUG LAMBORN (R-CO): Thank you, Madame Chairman.
General Renuart, could you please provide an update on the security upgrades being made to Building 2 at Peterson Air Force Base?
GEN. RENUART: Certainly, Mr. Lamborn. It's good to see you, and Mr. Coffman also -- good to see the Colorado delegation's almost the last two standing. So well done.
With respect to -- Congressman Lamborn, you know we have been involved in a number of improvements in -- to expand the security protection, if you will, of our operations in so-called Building 2, our NORAD/NORTHCOM command center. We have completed, now, about 4- 1/2 (million dollars) to $5 million worth of projects since we had the chance to chat last.
They include improvements to the entry/access procedures. We have created a dedicated Department of Defense security guard force now that is trained and equipped.
We have added additional fencing, access control, vehicle control, vehicle inspections, to our security procedures, so that we would reduce the potential, for someone with a threatening intent to gain access to the building.
We have a couple projects that are just still under way, continuing to work. One involves the electrical access in the building. One involves the provision of electromagnetic hardening.
I'm sorry Mr. Bartlett's not here. But we're improving that electromagnetic hardening in the building. And we continue to work with the wing, to find additional security measures that the host wing can take, to ensure that we don't have that kind of access, to the building, that might cause us a threat.
REP. LAMBORN: Thank you.
Now, what role do you envision for Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Base in the future?
GEN. RENUART: Well, Congressman, as you know, we continue to use Cheyenne Mountain as our alternate command center. It has played an active role. As a matter of fact, while we were doing some minor construction in the primary command center, we moved our operation to the mountain and have conducted full-up operations out of the mountain although, as you know, it's at a slightly smaller footprint.
We continue to have a rotating presence of assessors and command and control capability in the mountain. And we will continue to do that for the foreseeable future. So I think Cheyenne Mountain will continue to have a principal role in our overall command structure, albeit principally as the alternate command site.
REP. LAMBORN: Okay. Thank you for those answers. And I do look forward to continuing a dialogue, with you, on these important issues. And thank you for the work that you do.
GEN. RENUART: Absolutely. Thank you.
Thank you.
REP. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Lamborn.
Mr. Coffman.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE COFFMAN (R-CO): Thank you, Madame Chairman.
General Mattis, we obviously have used a pretty large conventional footprint when it comes to regime change and then nation building and using a counterinsurgency strategy. But we also have insurgency capability, in Special Operations, and our ability to go in and align ourselves with indigenous people that share our strategic view, in terms of regime change or trying to influence the political situation, in a given region.
Could you for us speak to an assessment of our capabilities, in terms of insurgents, on that side of insurgency?
GEN. MATTIS: Mr. Coffman, it would be best if Admiral Olson, my shipmate at Special Forces, Special Operations Command, gave it. However I can perhaps address at least some of the edges of this.
We have never had a more integrated Special Forces, general purpose forces effort in our history. They are so embedded now in each other. They have in many cases the same capabilities. And where they're not the same, the unique capabilities are used, back and forth, appropriately by the combatant commanders.
The Special Forces are heavily used right now.
And the result is, we have got to come up with a better allocation of resources, of enablers; for example, from the general-purpose forces that enable the special forces to operate. At the same time, we have got a very well defined division of labor, having sat down with Admiral Olson of Special Operations Command, chief of the staff of the Army, commandant of the Marine Corps and myself. And we look at, when we're going to try to do these things, before we have to send in large footprints of general-purpose forces, who should do it.
Let me tell you what the breakout is in general terms. If we're going to set long-term relationships with indigenous forces, with other nations, that's going to be Special Forces, that will remain there, the Army A Teams, the kind of people who are trained to do this. Where it's going to be teaching skill sets -- marching, marksmanship, first aid, basic infantry tactics -- the general-purpose forces will pick those up, so that we free the Special Forces to do what they only alone can do best -- if that gives you somewhat of an answer, I hope.
REP. COFFMAN: Thank you, General Mattis.
General Ward, in AFRICOM, what is your role or the role of AFRICOM -- is there a role -- in Darfur, indirect or direct? Potentially direct. Obviously, no direct role right now. But maybe you could speak to that.
GEN. WARD: Well, thank you, sir. Clearly, our role in Darfur today is that of an indirect nature as we support those African Union and United Nations forces that are there, that have been designated to go there, enabling them, training, equipping to a degree, as well as providing logistic support. I mentioned, you know, in January- February time frame we provided lift assistance to the government of Rwanda to move outsize cargo. (essentially ?) trucks that they would use in the mission there in Darfur.
And so we are involved with those nations. We're involved with the African Union as they endeavor to put their plans in place for addressing the situation in Darfur. Clearly, whatever we would do would be a result of a policy decision having been taken with respect to the role that we play. And as you pointed out, to this point that is purely a role from the military point of view of providing assistance to those peacekeeping forces that have been earmarked for peacekeeping activities in Darfur.
REP. COFFMAN: Would a correct assessment be that things have deteriorated recently in Darfur?
GEN. WARD: I think from the standpoint of the indictment and the reduction in the nongovernmental organizations that are allowed to operate in Darfur, it would certainly indicate a degradation of what goes on there. I've not been there, obviously so I can't speak to it directly, but clearly the indications are that's the case. I think at this point in time the pipeline distribution issues are there with respect to supplies of foodstuffs, of water, et cetera. So I think it would be fair to say that there has been a degradation of humanitarian relief efforts there in Darfur.
REP. COFFMAN: Admiral, I think it was expressed during the discussion about Hezbollah presence in your battlespace. Could you speak to that and assess the threat level?
ADM. STAVRIDIS: Yes, sir I'll afford myself, if it's appropriate, the opportunity to provide for the record classified portions of this. But as a general proposition, I'm concerned about the presence of Hezbollah throughout the Americas, in the Southern Cone of South America, in the Indian Ridge and in the Caribbean. Their primary activities are proselytizing, recruiting, money laundering, drug selling and using the profits from that to conduct a variety of the other activities that I mentioned.
It's of concern. I do not see operational terror cells in the region, but I do see that kind of support mechanism. It's of concern and I'll, again, provide some more detail to the committee on that.
REP. COFFMAN: Thank you, Admiral.
Mr. Chairman -- Madame Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
REP. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Coffman.
Mr. Franks?
REPRESENTATIVE TRENT FRANKS (R-AZ): Thank you, Madame Chair.
General Renuart, I have been hearing lately that you have been quoted, I think very accurately, as saying that our missile defense capability, as it is now, our present capability is -- that you have confidence that it's an effective defense against the present threat from North Korea. And that's a perspective that I share.
One of the concerns that some of us have is that -- I think, what -- we have 26 GBIs now in inventory and there's a question related to the 18 remaining that we're hoping to put in inventory soon. And because I'm, like a lot of other people, concerned about the need to have as many GBIs in inventory as possible, related to a potential, you know, growing North Korean threat and even at some point -- I know it'd be more for the East Coast for the time being -- but the Iranian missile threat continues to grow.
And so just from a strategic perspective, what do you think the strategic implications are of not fulfilling the inventory or filling the inventory to the -- to a total, I believe it would be, of 44? Do you -- what do you think your strategic implications of either delaying that or failing to follow through with those 18 additional GBIs?
GEN. RENUART: Well, thanks. I think it's -- as you say, I have expressed confidence in the capabilities that we have today against the threat that we see.
REP. FRANKS: Right.
GEN. RENUART: I think it's important for us to continue the robust testing regimen that General O'Reilly has laid out. That will allow us to grow the level of confidence we have against a variety of capabilities that might develop in the future. I have been supportive of that. As you mentioned, the planned buy of 44 interceptors, I think that makes very good sense, to allow us to not only maintain a capability against growing threats, but also to refresh missiles as they may need to be upgraded in terms of software and the like.
So I continue to be supportive of that -- of that initial plan. I think there is still quite a bit of discussion ongoing now with respect to a European basing site that I'm really not in a position to have an expert opinion on. And so I would -- my advocacy, if you will, is to keep the current testing program, the regimen, on track, to continue to make it a complicated, all -- sort of all-aspect testing program so that we're -- continue to be comfortable that as threats may develop, as other nations, rogue nations might expand their capability, we have an ability to answer to that.
REP. FRANKS: Well, thank you, sir. I guess, you know, I had the privilege of being present last night at the Missile Defense Agency when one of these tests was conducted, when we had the -- down in the Pacific, they shot a missile about 200-plus kilometers into the air and they sent from our THAAD system --
GEN. RENUART: Right.
REP. FRANKS: -- two interceptors. The second one was not necessary. And I just thought it was a great moment for America, as so many of these things are. And yet a lot of times, the armed forces don't get the credit that they deserve -- so -- you know, so nobly deserve in these situations. You -- even when there's not a war going on, you guys are always out trying to make us stronger and more capable of defending this country. And I honor you for that with all of my heart.
And I -- again, you don't get the credit. I think that should be all over the news today, that, you know, we don't -- we no longer hit, as General Obering says, a bullet with a bullet. We hit a spot on the side of a bullet with a bullet on a consistent basis. And that is an accomplishment. And I think that that means that my two little babies are going to be safer. And I appreciate you for protecting them.
So I got about one last shot at you, here.
GEN. RENUART: Yes, sir.
REP. FRANKS: Given the fact that we have essentially -- our firing doctrine is three on one, related to the Korean threat, or at least we want to be prepared for that.
That would give us, really, right now, the chance to only effectively engage eight missiles, and again, that's a -- I know, a rough analyses (sic). But I -- is there anything else that you would say related to the strategic necessity of having additional interceptors? Do you think that that's important? What emphasis would you put on that?
GEN. RENUART: Well, Congressman, I'm glad that you, first, had a chance to see that THAAD test. It really was a great success. And I think what that does is it also underlines the fact that missile defense is not just about the ground-based mid-course interceptors.
REP. FRANKS: That's right.
GEN. RENUART: It is a comprehensive approach, from the warning sensors that we must use, air-, sea-, space-based sensors -- radars, if you like, in simple terms -- to a -- both a long-range and a theatre capability to defend. And certainly the Navy's SM-3 aboard our Aegis cruisers, the THAAD system that you saw tested so successfully, as well as the ground-based mid-course interceptors, provide us a comprehensive capability. And I think it's important for us to continue that integrated approach. How that translates to numbers of missiles I think we don't know yet, because as the capabilities of each system mature you may see trade space amongst each of those systems to allow you to have the most efficient capability to defend the nation.
I think, as you said, the capability against the limited threat we see today, we're in good shape. I would not tie to a particular shot doctrine, because as the system matures, the system will actually do some analysis to determine how best to intercept one of these incoming missiles. So I think, again, we have a good commitment to this production rate. My sense is the department is supportive of that, so I don't -- I'm not worried about that at this point.
But I think we need to let this testing regimen complete itself before we tie ourselves to some number that may not actually be needed or maybe there's more. Hard to say.
REP. FRANKS: I understand.
Well, Madame Chair, thank you. I know that they don't put four stars on the shoulders of these individuals casually, so I thank all of you for your -- really committing your whole life to the cause of human freedom. And I wish we could really see more of what you do sometimes. I think it'd mean a lot to the country. Thank you.
REP. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Franks. And as we wind up -- and I want to thank you very much as well -- can I just go back to -- a second to our comments earlier about irregular warfare?
And I'm wondering if you have any message to the personnel committee in what we should be focusing on in terms of the recruiting, retention and training of our military that will continue to support the goal of having superiority in irregular warfare as well as superiority in conventional and nuclear technology. Can you respond -- quickly, anything?
GEN. MATTIS: Yes, ma'am. Just very quickly, none of us can predict the future, and we all have certain modest expectations about whether or not we'll really know where the next threat comes from.
But we know this. If we keep a very high-quality force, officer and enlisted; if we keep recruiting the kind of folks who can think on their feet, the kind of folks who can integrate high technology but not lose sight of the fact that human factors in war remain the dominant reason for success or failure, then we will make the adaptations, for example, in language training, cultural training and these sorts of things.
But it really comes down to one fundamental premise, and that is that we get the best and the brightest for these jobs.
We are decentralizing decision-making, and as we look at the cyberthreats and the EMP note that was made earlier, we are going to have to continue to decentralize decision-making. That means we need at the very youngest ages young folks who can use initiative and exercise good judgment, both tactically and ethically, because of the nature of these fights. It's all about quality, ma'am.
REP. DAVIS: (General, again ?) --
GEN. RENUART: Ma'am, if I could add a point, one of the keys to, if you will, preventing irregular war is the ability to build partnership capacity among our friends around the world. And while certainly Jim is right -- today's young men and women are eager to serve, and they understand the technical nature of the business -- I think it's important for us to continue that capability to build partnership capacity among our friends so that countries can manage those irregular threats that may develop without it requiring a large U.S presence.
ADM. STAVRIDIS: And --
GEN. WARD: And --
ADM. STAVRIDIS: Oh, I'm sorry, Kip. Go ahead.
GEN. WARD: And just not to let that one -- not go without another strike, in that whole regard of building the capacity of our partners, clearly our cultural understanding is critically important. The language programs within my command, my director of intelligence and knowledge development, whereby we try to have our best understanding of our partners -- their culture, environment, history, traditions, et cetera, et cetera -- those things help with those relationships, helps with the partnerships that we build, increases the trust and confidence between us, and therefore helping to get to the point that was made -- create the type of environment that would in fact prevent the irregular requirements from even existing.
REP. DAVIS: Thank you.
Admiral?
ADM. STAVRIDIS: I'll just close, if I could, by underlining language and culture very specifically. And I believe there are enormous second-order effects to having 2 million people in the Department of Defense studying and learning language and culture. It's a ripple effect, both in the world and our own country.
REP. DAVIS: Thank you very much. We'll look forward to working with you as we all face those difficult decisions and choices, and we hope to put more of our resources in that direction.
Thank you very much for being here. Again, we applaud your service and thank you for your time and attention today. Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.
No comments:
Post a Comment