Hearing Of The Terrorism, Unconventional Threats And Capabilities Subcommittee Of The House Armed Services Committee - The Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Budget Request For The U.S. Special Operations Command

Statement

Chaired By: Rep. Adam Smith

Witness: Admiral Eric Olson, Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command

Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.

REP. SMITH: Good afternoon. I think we're ready to get started. It's right at 1:00 o'clock. We certainly expect other members to come drifting in as we proceed but want to be respectful of the admiral's time and get started on time in welcoming, as always before our subcommittee, Admiral Olson. It's always a pleasure to see you up here and certainly we appreciate the work you do for our county on leading the Special Operations Command.

I have an opening statement that I have written that I will submit for the record. I just briefly want to say how important the Special Operations Command is to our nation's national security and how much we really appreciate and respect the job that you and all of the people under you have done in protecting our national security all over the world in many, many places, some of which are well known, like Iraq and Afghanistan, others of which many people are not aware of but in many ways are just as important, certainly for the future of the broader conflict against violent extremists. And I think the holistic approach that the Special Operations Command has brought to winning that fight is invaluable.

You know, without question you are the best in the world at finding and disrupting terrorist networks, at targeting individual terrorists and either capturing or killing them, and that skill, regrettably, will continue to have an important role in our national security. But you also understand how important it is to win the broader ideological war, to work with our partners out there in other countries in the world to get them to take the lead in countering insurgencies, to give them the training and the help they need and, of course, nowhere is that truer or more in need right now than in Pakistan, and that training will be an important part of success there as well.

And also just the broader message issues -- how do we communicate -- how do we do counter radicalization. Both your command and, I think, as impressively the individual soldiers, Marines, airmen, and Navy SEALs out there have developed skills in those areas that are invaluable not just for the Special Operations Command but have proven to be valuable to the broader Department of Defense and intel communities in truly understanding what we're up against, how to confront it, and also how to build on alliances that are out there. What has been learned out there on the battlefield has really been very helpful in terms of preparing on all of those issues and we know Special Operation (sic) Command takes a strong leadership role and our subcommittee is very interested in being supportive and being helpful.

We know there are inevitable battles over funds but you always seem to do a very, very good job with what we provide and I do believe that Congress has also recognized the importance of this role and has done our best to provide what you need to fight that fight. So we appreciate what you're doing, look forward to hearing your testimony, and with that I will turn it over to the ranking member, Mr. Miller, for any opening statement he might have.

REP. JEFF MILLER (R-FL): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I also have a statement I'd like submitted for the record. I would like to say welcome, Admiral. Hope your travels up were good. Thank you for the hospitality. I had a wonderful chance to visit with you and Marilyn Monday evening and we thank you so much for hosting us and look forward to your testimony today.

ADM. OLSON: Thank you, sir.

REP. SMITH: Thank you. With that, Admiral Olson?

ADM. OLSON: Well, thank you, sir. Good afternoon, Chairman Smith, Congressman Miller. I thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before this committee to highlight the current posture of the United States Special Operations Command. (I will ?) say that thanks to the foresight, advocacy, and strong support of this body -- and we recognize that we were a product of the Congress -- we do remain well positioned to meet the nation's expectations of its joint Special Operations Forces.

Primarily, as you well know, U.S. Special Operations Command is responsible through its service component commands -- the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, the Air Force Special Operations Command, the Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command, and Naval Special Warfare Command -- for organizing, equipping, training, and providing fully capable Special Operations Forces to serve under the operational control of geographic combatant commanders around the world.

In this role, the United States Special Operations Command headquarters shares many of the responsibilities, authorities, and characteristics of a military department's war defense agency including a separate major force program budget established by the Congress for the purpose of funding equipment, materiel, supplies, services, training, and operational activities that are peculiar to Special Operations Forces. United States Special Operations Command has also been designated as the combatant command responsible for synchronizing Department of Defense planning against terrorists and terror networks globally, a function that requires robust daily activity punctuated semi-annually by a conference that now attracts over a thousand people from about 40 different agencies and organizations.

Additionally, we've been assigned proponency (ph) by the Department of Defense for security force assistance. In this role, we expect to foster the long-term partnerships that will shape a more secure global environment in the face of global challenges such as transnational crime, extremism, and migration. The joint Special Operations Force itself, those assigned to the United States Special Operations Command by the military services for most of their military careers comprises Army Special Forces, Rangers, Navy SEALs, combatant craft crewmen, and many submarine operators, Marine special operators, fixed and rotary wing aviators from the Army and the Air Force, combat controllers, para rescue jumpers, practitioners of civil military affairs, and military information support, all of these and more augmented, supported, and enabled by a wide variety of assigned logisticians, administrative specialists, sensor operators, intelligence analysts, acquisition professionals, operations planners, strategists, communications experts, budget managers -- (inaudible) -- trainers, instructors, scientists, technologers -- technologists and many more who are great men and women, active duty and Reservists, military and civilian, who generally work within the Special Operations community for an assignment or two.

This is truly a team of teams. It is a force that is well suited to the irregular operating environments in which we are now engaged, as you mentioned in your opening statement, sir, and its proven abilities have created an unprecedented demand for its effects in remote, uncertain, and challenging operating areas.

Whether the assigned mission is to train, advise, fight, or provide humanitarian assistance, the broad capabilities of Special Operations Forces make them the force of choice. And while the high long-term demand for Special Operations Forces in Afghanistan and Iraq have led to 86 percent of the overseas force currently being deployed to the United States Central Command area of responsibility, Special Operations Forces do maintain a global presence. In fiscal year 2009, Special Operations Forces have already conducted operations and training in 106 countries around the globe.

Throughout these operations, Special Operations Forces have taken a long-term approach to engagement, designed to forge enduring partnerships contributing to regional stability. This balance of effective, direct, and indirect actions, the combination of high-end tactical skills, and an understanding of the operational context of their application is the core of Special Operations. From support to major combat operations to the conduct of irregular warfare, Special Operations Forces are normally the first in and last out, accomplishing their missions with their very small, highly capable, and agile forces.

In our current environment, it's important to note the traditional activities of irregular warfare are not new to Special Operations Forces. Unconventional warfare, counter terrorism, civil affairs operations, information operations, psychological operations, (foreign internal ?) defense are longstanding Special Operations Force's core activities. As a result, significant resources are required to ensure that Special Operations Forces are properly manned, trained, and equipped to operate globally and with unmatched speed, precision, and discipline.

The United States Special Operations Command fiscal year 2010 budget request includes the resources necessary to continue providing full spectrum multi-mission global Special Operations Forces that will equip the United States with a comprehensive set of unique capabilities, and while the United States Special Operations Command major force program -- (inaudible) -- budget has historically been robust enough to meet the peculiar Special Operations mission requirements, the success of Special Operations Forces depends not only on SOCOM's dedicated budget and acquisition authorities but also on Special Operations Command's service (parents ?) and partners. Special Operations Forces rely on the services for a broad range of support.

Some of the enabling capabilities that must be provided by the services include mobility, aerial sensors, field medical capabilities, remote logistics, engineering, planning, construction, intelligence, communications, security, and more. With a combination of the United States Special Operations Command budget and the support from the services, Special Operations Command seeks a balance, first, to have a sufficient organic Special Operations peculiar force for speed of response to operational crises, and second, to have enabling capabilities assigned to indirect support of Special Operations Forces for sustainment and expansion of operations.

United States Special Operations Command headquarters will continue to lead, develop, and sustain the world's most precise and lethal counter terrorism force. We will provide the world's most effective Special Operations trainers, advisers, and combat partners with the skills, leadership, and mindset necessary to meet today's and tomorrow's unconventional challenges. This nation's joint Special Operations Forces will continue to find, kill, or capture our irreconcilable enemies, to train, mentor, and partner with our global friends and allies, and to pursue the tactics, techniques, procedures, and technologies that will keep us ahead of dynamic emerging threats.

I thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. I'll conclude my opening remarks with a simple statement of pride in the Special Operations Force that I'm honored to command. Special Operations Forces are contributing globally well beyond what its percentage of the total force would indicate. Every day they are fighting our enemies, training our partners, and through personal contact and assistance, bringing real value to tens of thousands of villagers who are still deciding their allegiances. I stand ready for your questions.

REP. SMITH: Thank you very much. Several questions. We will adhere to the five minute rule just to keep structure to the questioning. The first question I have is about 1208 authority which I know has been a critical tool for what you've been able to do in a number of different places. You're asking for an expansion a little bit of the money. I think it's $35 million now; you're asking for $50 million. Can you tell us a little bit about how those funds are used and why they are so important to what you're doing?

ADM. OLSON: Yes, sir. The 1208 authority is peculiar to Special Operations. It requires that the funds be used to support ongoing special operations. This is really enabling the special operations forces to extend their operations through the use of surrogates and counterparts to conduct activities in support of the special operations forces who are on that operation. It is an authority and not an appropriation. It authorizes the United States Special Operations Command to recommend to the secretary of Defense after coordinating with the geographic combatant commander and the chief of Mission in the country to utilize up to currently $35 million of O&M funds from within the Special Operations budget.

So it is an issue of prioritization within our budget. It's enormously important because it is an agile fund, it's a focused fund, it's used for purposes that are well-coordinated and in a closed session I could provide a certain bit of detail about how it has effect around the world.

REP. SMITH: Certainly. I think it's a program that we strongly support, and I think it essentially contributes to the second area of questioning. That is the importance of interagency cooperation and what you're doing which is increasingly important. When we look at this broadly globally as a counter-insurgency fight. There are a lot of different pieces that are going to have to be pulled together in order to make this work. And I think, you know I've seen Special Operations Command under your leadership and also out in the field under the leadership of at one point General McChrystal I think pulled those pieces together about as effectively as anywhere I've seen in government.

As we go forward and you look outside of areas like Iraq and Afghanistan where I think we're specifically familiar with the struggles there, but if you look to some of these emerging threat environments around the Horn of Africa and Yemen and AQ in the Megrev (ph), what do you think is most important in terms of pushing forward that level of cooperation between SOFCOM, other elements of DoD, State and the Intel community?

ADM. OLSON: The most important thing to push forward are structures that provide a forum so that the interagency community can provide the content to the discussions. These are relationships that are building over time. We are way better than we have ever been. We're not as good as we will be next year or the year after, but so much of it has to do with just understanding each other's organizations and cultures, and we're even seeing now what I call second or third generation or second or third order effects, as people have worked together in one place now coming together in another place and already having a relationship so that they can move much more quickly together.

General McChrystal I think set the standard aggressively at the operational level. I think the United States Special Operations Command is serving as a model of sorts at the higher headquarters level. We wake up every day with about 85 uniformed members of the Special Operations Command going to work in other agencies of government inside the national capital region. Most of the agencies that you would expect and perhaps some that wouldn't normally expect us to be in in small teams, two to four people with an 06 colonel or a Navy captain as the team leader.

We also wake up every day at our headquarters at McGill Air Force Base in Tampa with about 140 members of other agencies coming to work in our headquarters. Full members of the team sitting in on all the discussions, sitting in on all the global collaboration kinds of briefings, and this has provided a transparency in the interagency environment that's very helpful. And it's hard now having seen it in action for a few years to imagine, to remember back what it was like before, back when we used to look around the room and see only uniformed members. It really is a good solid team effort at this point.

REP. SMITH: And that is something we really want to encourage. I think you hit upon the absolute key to getting people from the different agencies to actually work together side by side, day in and day out with each other in different forms. And you've done an excellent job, as you mentioned, sprinkling some SOFCOM people out in other places. Other agencies need to do that as well. I think the DNCTC is a good forum for that. But we want to see that happen more and more and look for ways to encourage it, and I think in particular some of the Title 10, Title 50 conflicts between Intel and DoD can be resolved better if we start having more sharing back and forth.

Now obviously we understand all those different pieces have personnel to manage. That's the great challenge I know for you. And your personnel is sent all over a bunch of other place, you've got a core mission to accomplish. So if along the way if there are ways that we can help you free up more personnel, please let us know. I know you've got an ongoing issue in terms of the management within your own entity of different service members. And we are communicating that concern to DoD in trying to give you the authority you need to better manage your own personnel within SOFCOM. And certainly we look for those opportunities also to build those relationships and really just sort of continue on with the Goldwater- Nichols principle and now apply it across agency lines as well as within the DoD. We look forward to doing that.

With that, I will yield to Mr. Miller for five minutes.

REP. MILLER: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I served on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and I've had an opportunity to visit with some of our NATO allies and they are indeed proud of the contributions that they are making, certainly within the SOF community, and certainly in Afghanistan. And what I'd like to ask you for the record, if you would explain the impact of the SOF capabilities of those partners in the current fight as it exists in Afghanistan? And if you could update as well on Iraq as we transition out?

ADM. OLSON: Yes, sir. From your visits to the NATO SOF Coordination Center you understand how this team is coming together and the bonding that's occurring across the Special Operations Forces of NATO at the headquarters environment. I think it's inspired. It's certainly stimulated the activities of some Special Operations forces being provided to the ISAF effort in Afghanistan. I'm not the expert on how individual nations Special Operations forces are performing, what their activities are in Afghanistan.

That's outside my realm of responsibility, and I'm not sure my monitorship is strong enough to give a coherent and accurate answer on that at this point.

I will say that in my discussions with NATO's SOF leaders there is a sense of community that is forming across the nations Special Operations communities. I would term it loosely perhaps Special Operations flag is something around which NATO forces can rally. It's a relatively inexpensive, relatively low level investment in a much broader military capability that NATO can provide. The NATO SOF Coordination Center now as you know is less than three years old. But it has got its legs up under it pretty well.

REP. MILLER: What can we do? What do you think we can do to assist our allies as they develop their SOF units?

ADM. OLSON: Sir, I think there's already robust activity in NATO, and we're seeing some NATO countries step forward in terms of presenting those Special Operations Forces as subject matter experts in particular disciplines and then serving, using that to attract others to exercise and train with them. So there's a synergy that's occurring bilaterally in areas where the United States isn't involved and multilaterally and bilaterally where we are.

I think that my shortest answer to that would be to explore ways to operationalize the NATO SOF Coordination Center, and I'm not knowledgeable enough about how NATO works organizationally to understand the details and nuances of that. The NATO SOF Coordination Center director is now a dual-hatted American two-star general who serves in his primary role as the commander of Special Operations Command, European Command. And so I would suggest exploring ways by which we might form a separate director for the NATO SOF Coordination Center.

REP. MILLER: One question, moving away from NATO. It involves where we are with our gun ships. Certainly with ASOC in my district it appears that there is a shortfall, but the budget doesn't request any additional funding for gun ships this year. Can you talk about our plans or your plans to address that particular shortfall along with your plans to maintain, modernize and upgrade the existing aircraft that are out there?

ADM. OLSON: Yes, sir. We have a recapitalization program for most of the rest of our Q130 fleet; 37 HCMC 130 Js will come into our program. That was a higher priority initially than the AC130 gunship for recapitalization because of the ages of the airframes involved. The recent level of activity in Afghanistan is causing us to understand again how important precision firepower is in that tactical environment, and we are understanding clearly that our capacity is insufficient, and that other substitute platforms simply don't bring the same response to troops in contact that an AC130 does. AC130 is not a precision fire platform. It's actually an area fire weapon that's extremely accurate with its sensors and guns. So what we are doing to augment the AC130 fleet, what we are seeking to do immediately is modify our MC130W fleet to serve as a platform for a standoff position guided munition as a primary weapon and a 30 millimeter gun as a secondary weapon, all proven systems. It's simply a matter of integrating them in a platform that hasn't been used for that purpose before. We are seeking funds to do this, and we think that because the technology risk is so low that we can deliver it very quickly.

REP. MILLER: Thank you. That's all for now, Mr. Chairman.

REP. SMITH: Thank you. Mr. McIntyre is recognized for five minutes.

REP. MIKE MCINTYRE (D-NC): Thank you. And thanks for being with us, Admiral. Thanks again for your hospitality last year when I was able to join you down in Tampa. Thank you for the service you give to us here at home and around the world. The concern about wear and tear on equipment I know is one that we've had especially since the situation occurred in Iraq. And tell me with regards specifically to the Special Operations Forces equipment and resources, what resources are you finding under your command that are experiencing the greatest wear and tear? And to what exactly do you attribute this extraordinary aging process? And do you have some thoughts you could share with us about how we might can best help you address that situation?

ADM. OLSON: Yes, sir. Thank you. I don't think it will surprise anybody. The answer is that it's our mobility systems that are suffering the most wear and tear because of the ways that they're used and the pace that they are used. So I asked my staff just recently to give me the top five items in terms of what we're seeing wear and tear, and it's exactly what you would think. It's our fixed wing and rotary wing aviation; it's our ground mobility fleet, and in one case it's a maritime platform. We're simply flying more hours, we're driving more miles, we're spending more time on the water, and this is just at a pace beyond what we had predicted when those systems were procured. So we are refurbishing them more often, and we've been resourced adequately to do that.

My concern looking ahead is simply that we sustain the level of resources that will permit us to keep this equipment going. As we look forward to some forces perhaps drawing down in Iraq especially, we don't see that happening for Special Operations Forces at all. So as we've come to depend on some special funding means to keep this equipment going in the operational environment, we're going to have to find a way to work that into our baseline budget in order to sustain this equipment over time.

REP. SMITH: Sorry to interrupt, but just on that point, as we are drawing down our conventional forces I know there are some challenges in terms of your staying there and the same numbers in terms of you making sure that you continue to get the support equipment that you need, because a lot of that you get from the conventional forces in the field. How's that playing out? Are you satisfied that those concerns are being met, or is there more that needs to be done?

ADM. OLSON: Sir, I think it's playing out well. Recently we've had service chief level talks with the commandant of the Marine Corps and the chief of staff of the Army. We are in complete accord about what the challenges are and seeking ways together to resolve those. I think there's a broad understanding that whether it's a small force in an area or a large force in an area, you still need somebody to control the air space, operate the airfields, provide the quick reaction force, provide the medical support, do all the rest of it that it takes to look after the force that is forward.

And so we are helping them help us by doing the detailed analysis of exactly what it is we think will have to be left behind if you will by the forces that draw down in order to sustain the activity that stays behind. I think we're on good track with that in our conversations with the services.

REP. SMITH: Right. Thanks. I apologize.

REP. MCINTYRE: Can you tell us what the typical rotational cycles are of SOF personnel, particularly in CENTCOM and how that may be affecting what you best feel like you can do with regard to keeping up with such a pace in terms of the rotation to personnel? I know that issue has come up in a broader context with our military, but I'm specifically want to be concerned about how this is affecting you and the Special Operations Forces.

ADM. OLSON: Yes, sir. The service components have sort of evolved into different rotational paces depending on the nature of the force, the type of equipment they used, the nature of the operations that they're conducting. So it ranges from about 90 days on the short end for some of our aviators who fly an awful lot of hours at night on night vision goggles and who burned up their allotted flying hours more quickly and therefore need to come back and sort of reset. Through about seven months for our Special Forces Operational Detachment A Teams, the Green Berets, who are at battalion level rotations at that pace. And then it extends beyond that to one year rotations for many of the people assigned at the higher headquarters in order to provide a campaign planning continuity to the effort at the more senior levels.

The rate now is sustainable. Our predictions about how long we could sustain it were wrong. We didn't think that we could sustain it at this pace this long. But the force is proving resilient beyond our estimate. I think personally that we are at about the maximum rate that we can sustain, but I think that we can sustain this rate for some time longer. It has now become the new normal, that this is the way we operate. People who are doing this have been doing it long enough to know that this is what it is they can expect to do. And our retention rate remains high and our recruiting remains healthy.

So if the demand didn't increase we're probably pretty okay. But what we see is an increasing demand for Special Operations Forces and so we've got a growth plan in place to accommodate that.

REP. MCINTYRE: Thank you. Good to have you here, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. SMITH: Thank you. Mr. Ellsworth for five minutes.

REP. BRAD ELLSWORTH (D-IN): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Admiral. I apologize for being late. I had some Hoosiers in the office that didn't want to let me go. But thanks, Admiral.

And if this question has been discussed, just let me know and I'll move on to something else.

Could you talk, Admiral, a little bit about some of the interoperability between the agencies? If things are being done in the most efficient manner between the interagency cooperation, some of the challenges you might have faced, what's the best practice, and what are our successes and what challenges are you facing in the meld there?

ADM. OLSON: Sir, we did address that at some level, and what I said, very quickly, is that it's better than it's ever been. It will get better. And we are now at the point where the structures have evolved to provide the venues for these kinds of interactions to occur. Now it's a matter of the people getting the knowledge of each other's organizations and traditions and, frankly, languages in order to talk to the efficiency of it. The trend is certainly going in the right direction. We are way ahead of where we thought we might be just a couple of years ago.

REP. ELLSWORTH: Great. And if you would, this is totally unrelated, but an area of particular interest for me, discuss what you can about our attempts and our movement in the non-lethal field, where we're at on that, whether vehicle stops or personnel stops. I know that's not normally what would be discussed in Special Ops but certainly it would be a valuable part in winning hearts and minds. If you wouldn't mind telling me where we're at and what we need?

ADM. OLSON: Sir, we are all in favor of every applicable non- lethal technology. We understand as well as anybody I think that killing people is not the way to success in either Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else that we work. And a nonlethal effect that can then give you time to sort out the situation, sort out the people would be a great advantage on the battlefield.

Special Operations is in favor of any feasible appropriate technology. Our position, though, is that those technologies have a much broader application than Special Operations forces. So we are advocates of it, we are champions for it, we are supporters and cheerleaders for it. But we have very few of those programs initiated within the Special Operations budget itself.

REP. ELLSWORTH: I've seen some of the things, I'm embarrassed to say, being in Congress and on Armed Services, that I'm watching the Discovery Channel and seeing some of the new technology about the heat projecting apparatus -- I don't even know what you call it, but very interesting.

Is that on the edge of being used?

ADM. OLSON: My staff is telling me it's called the Active Denial System.

REP. ELLSWORTH: That's a great name for that. (Laughs.) Couldn't have named it better myself!

Is that in the prototype stage, is it being used in those kinds of things?

ADM. OLSON: Sir, I'll have to take that for the record. I saw that demonstrated, but it's been a couple years ago and I don't know what's happened, actually, since then.

REP. ELLSWORTH: Thank you, Admiral.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

REP. SMITH: Thank you.

A couple of areas I wanted to ask about and then we'll go back through the members as well.

Piracy has been emerging as a threat and a challenge. And I guess, congratulations is the word on running a very, very good operation in rescuing the Maersk crew here about a month or so ago.

We actually had an opportunity to get briefed by Captain Moore and a couple others who had participated in that operation -- very impression accomplishment and it's great. But all those years ago you were trained to do, you know, basically were set up so that if there was a hostage anywhere in the world you could respond very, very quickly. You've been doing a lot of other things in between, but it was very impressive to see that that training paid off and we knew what to do.

Go forward in terms of how we confront piracy. Certainly, it's a challenge in that part of the world off the coast of Somalia. And there's implications that we need to try and confront. At the same time, as we've mentioned in this hearing, you have a wealth of other responsibilities that are also important in Afghanistan and Pakistan -- a variety of other places.

And one of my concerns is that with the media attention on piracy coming up, you know, if we shift too much of our focus in that direction, we distract from these other very important missions as well.

I just wonder if you could comment how you see SOCOM's role in combating piracy in that part of the world and any concerns you have about how it may distract from some of the other missions.

ADM. OLSON: Yes, sir. We have, obviously, across the military there's robust capability to take on piracy in different ways and Special Operations contributes some of the capability to that, as was evidenced here a couple of months ago.

How that force was used is a matter of policy. It's my responsibility to train the force to do what it is it's asked to do. We do keep some elements of our force on standby, on alert to respond to that kind of situation that if they are infrequent, then I think we would consider it not to be much of -- much of a burden on the force.

REP. SMITH: I mean, even with everything that's gone on in the last eight years, it's always been the case that you had that standby force.

ADM. OLSON: Yes, sir.

REP. SMITH: Sorry to interrupt.

ADM. OLSON: Well, again, it's more of a policy issue. But the question is really are we going to prevent piracy or are we going to respond to piracy with the military force? Today we've been more in the business of -- with my force -- of responding -- of providing those who respond to it. And we're able to continue with that mission without impacting on our others.

REP. SMITH: Certainly.

Mr. Miller.

REP. MILLER: I'll pass.

REP. SMITH: Okay. I've got more questions, but Mr. McIntyre, did you have anything you wanted to add?

REP. MCINTYRE: I just wanted to ask you if you feel like that the partnership with NATO and their Special Operations capability is working well?

ADM. OLSON: Sir -- and we did address that briefly earlier -- but the NATO Special Operations Coordination Centre -- NSCC headquartered in Mons -- is an up and running organization. It's not fully manned; it's not fully capable yet, but the relationships that have occurred within that organization have developed quite strong bonds among the NATO Special Operations Forces.

I was able to attend their first annual conference last year. Twenty eight countries, I believe, came to that conference and it was remarkable how similar the conversation -- where the vision is across the Special Operation Forces of NATO, some of which say they feel that they have more in common with the Special Operations forces of other nations than they do with other forces of their own nation, because of the way that they train and exercise together.

I think that there's an opportunity to take that to the next step. I'm just not certain what the next step is. And what I mentioned before is we might explore a way to operationalize NATO SOF Coordination Centre in some way and provide an independent directorate, who's now a dual-hatted officer.

REP. MCINTYRE: Thank you.

REP. SMITH: Following up on that -- actually, it was a trip I took in January with some members. On the way back from Iraq we stopped in Mons and had the opportunity to visit Special Operation Forces NATO Command and I just can't tell you how impressed we were by the degree of coordination.

And without getting into too many detailed aspersions here, we did not find similar coordination in other parts of NATO that we met with. And that's a major, major challenge in Afghanistan is figuring out how to get all of our partner nations -- it would be far too ambitious to say on the same page, but at least on the same book when it comes to how we're going to confront Afghanistan and Pakistan.

And NATO was set up the way it's set up. It's an important alliance. It's very difficult to manage that many different countries coming from that many different perspectives.

So I certainly have a fair amount of respect for the difficulties that the organization faces

But we went through all these meetings on that with increasing frustration. And lastly, the last meeting we had -- which regrettably, we didn't have as much time as I would have liked for -- was to visit the SOF force. And it was inspirational, because we saw that it can work. You can, in fact, bring that many different nations together to coordinate in a way that is effective.

And I guess my plea would be that the SOF forces over there try to spread that message out more broadly among the other aspects of NATO. And it would be very, very critical.

A couple of things I wanted to ask you about --

ADM. OLSON: Sir, if I could make just one point.

REP. SMITH: Go ahead.

ADM. OLSON: I didn't mean to attribute more countries to NATO or more to this conference. What we're seeing, actually, is an extension of Special Operations cooperation beyond NATO. And those who participate in other operations where they may work with a NATO SOF country are now becoming part of this team. So this first annual conference we came to last year was actually attended by some non-NATO countries, because they choose to develop those relationships. It's really encouraging to see this play out.

REP. SMITH: It's invaluable as we, you know, the mantra of counterinsurgency -- by, through and with. You want to work with the host nations and many of them are now working with this and learning the necessary skills to implement that policy.

I want to ask a little bit about some of the contrasting issues and it's something we've dealt with. And what we've always tried to do on this committee is find ways to enable SOCOM to have a slightly more nimble approach to acquisitions. So that, you know, the normal processes are difficult when you're operating at such speed and with so much technology that's rapidly changing. If you go through a normal 18-month acquisition process, by the time you've acquired the product, it is out of date. So we've tried to speed it up in a couple of different areas. I'm curious how you think that is going in general.

And I also wanted to give you an opportunity to respond. I know The Washington Post had written an article recently critical of some of that contract -- that it hadn't followed the process in some instances. I have a very strong bias that drowning the DOD in process is one of the things that is inhibiting our ability to move forward, but that's not to say that we don't need to have some transparent process so that we make sure that it's all on the up and up and done in the best interest of the taxpayers.

I just want to give you an opportunity to comment on those issues and where you see it headed.

ADM. OLSON: Yes, sir. I certainly agree with you. And I am encouraged by all that Secretary of Defense Gates has said about relooking at how acquisition is done department-wide, with an eye towards cost reduction and streamlining acquisition processes.

With the Special Operations Command, as you said, we are intended by Congress, I believe, to be more agile than the services can be with their large acquisition programs using our MFP-11 budget for the Special Operations peculiar acquisition -- procurement actions that we take.

I focused on this a couple of years ago. And investigating our own house, I realized that many of the barnacles that have grown on our process were barnacles that we let grow -- as I termed it -- within my own headquarters. I thought we were operating comfortably sort of in the middle of our authorizations and certainly not pushing the edge of it.

So we've got several initiatives within our headquarters to provide more agility internally. Along the way, we have sought and been granted relief from participating in some of the service-wide joint acquisition processes, which had been applied probably improperly to Special Operations programs. The vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs has -- who runs some of this process -- he's just relieved us of those where the acquisition project -- program is a Special Operations peculiar program.

We do operate under all the same laws and policies and reporting requirements. We've got a ways to go in terms of continuing to scrape the barnacles off, but I think we're making progress in that regard. And we will certainly continue to report to you how that is going. But I'm encouraged by what we've seen here just in the last few months.

With respect to the DOD IG report, that was not an acquisition contracting issue that was a contract that we led with a single provider of many services to the special operations community. They modify equipment, they maintain equipment, they repair equipment and refurbish it, they store equipment for us, they do build sort of small one off items for us, they design and build those.

It's a comprehensive set of activities that they perform for us and the DOD IG look into that, which we appreciate, highlighted three findings two of which we concurred mostly with and have taken several internal actions to resolve working with IG and I think to their satisfaction. The third one actually had to do with a potential anti deficiency act violation which it was our responsibility to conduct a preliminary review of, we did that. Our preliminary review identified that the finding had some merit, there is the potential of an ADA violation and so this week my comptroller has initiated a formal investigation into that finding which is our responsibility to do.

We have nine months to report the results of that investigation, we have 90 days to respond formally to the release of the final IG report.

REP. SMITH: Admiral I have one more question, I want to see if any of my colleagues have anything else. And then just you know in focusing for a moment -- I mean, as long as we have you here we'd be interested in your take on Afghanistan and Pakistan and the various situations there.

In particular two areas. In both -- and this is something that General McChrystal highlighted in his comments yesterday, the day before yesterday, in front of the Senate -- you know talking about, you know, the balance between confronting the enemy and being able to track down the terrorists who threaten us and at the same time protecting against civilian casualties and taking a more classic counterinsurgency approach. And I agree with General McChrystal that we need the Afghan people on our side. And right now the two greatest threats to them being on our side are, number one, the civilian casualty issue, both real and in some cases I think generated by Taliban propaganda. But we need to get better at countering that propaganda, getting our own message out. But also it is a very, very real concern.

And then, of course, the other issue is, you know, the efficacy of the Afghan government which the people of Afghanistan do not believe in. I think certainly the best approach there is to try to go local as much as possible. The Afghan people are far more likely to trust their local tribes and work with their local provincial governments than they are to buy off on whatever the national government winds up looking like, not to say that we shouldn't try to make the national government a little bit better as well.

But in balancing now and in Afghanistan going forward, how do you see the best approach to striking that balance? And the second question, you know, with regard to Pakistan this issue effects Pakistan as well, in fact, David Kilcullen testified before our committee awhile back had a pretty good summary of that saying that the strikes, the drone strikes in the Fatah are actually fairly well thought of in the Fatah because the people who live there have been, you know, dealing with these violent psychopaths who have been running their communities. It's in Pakistan itself and in Afghanistan where the civilian population sees this as a threat to their sovereignty and therefore is less likely to be supportive of us.

But also specifically Pakistan you know needs to learn counter insurgency. And I won't go through the litany of challenges there. You know them well. But we need to be able to help them while at the same time we have a limited role to play. And their sovereignty is very important, it's incredibly important to getting support for their government that we not have too heavy a hand there.

So I guess my two questions at the end of all that are what can we do to better help Pakistan get to the counterinsurgency level that they need to get at, because as successful as they've been in Swat and other regions recently it's been a pretty heavy handed conventional approach that's created 2 (million) to 3 million refugees even as it's driven back the Taliban, number one.

And then number two, how do you see us striking the balance in Afghanistan between fighting the people we need to fight and stopping the number of civilian casualties?

ADM. OLSON: Well, sir, I think you just said it better than I could, and I certainly support everything that General McChrystal said in his confirmation hearing a couple of days ago.

If I could go to Pakistan first --

REP. SMITH: Please.

ADM. OLSON: -- I think that we can't help Pakistan more than they want to be helped.

And one of the filters on sort of their willingness to be helped is how the Pakistan military is perceived within Pakistan. It is the strongest element of Pakistan historically. It is the element of government upon which the people depend. And I think that we have to be very careful in recognizing that we can't take actions that would cause the Pakistan military to appear to the Pakistani people to be an extension of ours. We can only help them in a way that truly helps them and they are much more expert in that than we are.

So I think best thing that we can do is develop the relationships that will erode whatever atmosphere of distrust exists, help the Pakistani people understand that our interests there are theirs and that our commitment is a long term commitment for the good of Pakistan and the stability of the region. But it will require us to work very carefully and very wisely with the Pakistan government, with the Pakistan military and the frontier corps.

Regarding Afghanistan, I would highlight that Afghanistan is a uniquely complex environment. Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan is very different than it has been anywhere else where we have operated. It is really a village-by-village, valley-by-valley counterinsurgency. One of the things that I'm finding myself saying more often is that presence without value is perceived as occupation, and in Afghanistan in particular, occupation is resisted as a -- it's simply their culture to resist outsiders, they pride themselves on a long history of resisting outside influence.

Much of Afghanistan has not felt the presence, the impact of a central government in Kabul ever. And as you said, I think a large part of our goal there is to encourage the people who are now deciding where their allegiance will be, it's urging -- it's causing them to decide to place their bet with a legitimate government, at whatever level that is. Whether it's a legitimate tribal, local, regional or federal government, it will come down to ultimately where they place their bet. And I think in the absence of solid metrics, it will be our sense of where the people are beginning to place their bets that will lead us to understand whether or not our efforts are successful in the hinterlands of Afghanistan.

That will require a careful approach, it will require as small a footprint as we can get away with in the places we go with the capability and the security considerations as part of that. It will require I believe a shift towards true local regional knowledge however that is obtained. We have to get beyond generalizations in Afghanistan into true deep knowledge of tribal relationships, family histories, the nuances of the terrain and the weather and how that effects how business is done, how money is made, how their world operates.

If we are to be predictable in our effects, I think an awful large part of what we have got to develop is an ability to be -- I said that wrong, I don't mean predictable in our effects, I mean accurate in our predictions of our effects. We have got to have a better sense of the impact of our behavior as we put our plans together to work in the remote regions of Afghanistan.

I think this is a long term commitment for us in order to build that depth of knowledge and then allow it to have the impact in the places where that needs to occur. This will not be people deciding overnight where their allegiance is, it's going to have to be convincing them over a long period of time that they are better off placing their bet with the local regional governments than with the illegitimate power players in the region.

REP. SMITH: Sure. Of course, as so frequently happens, in asking you that question I thought of one more.

Shifting to Africa for the moment, we recently did a codell throughout many portions of Africa. We went to Burkina Faso and we got a little bit of a brief on AQIM and sort of the surrounding area there of Mauritania, Mali, Algeria, and we know there is activity of violent extremist groups there -- al Qaeda has set up a franchise most present in Algeria -- but also in vast areas of Mali and Mauritania that are largely unpopulated, there is -- we know that there is some activity from al Qaeda sympathetic groups.

We don't -- we have some presence in different places not a great deal. How concerned are you about that area? And is that an area where we need greater coverage at least in terms of the ISR because of this huge, vast open spaces out there that there's stuff going on but we don't have a lot of coverage of it so we don't know exactly. Is that something we should be really concerned about or not?

ADM. OLSON: I think we should understand that as pressure is applied as it was in Iraq and now in Afghanistan and as the Pakistanis are applying pressure in Pakistan that this will not necessarily end the activity, it will shift some of the sanctuaries to other places. And I think that in these large expanses of what are often called undergoverned regions simply because the governments don't have the capacity to govern in some of the places where they have the will, then we've got to find ways of having a better understanding of what's happening there. ISR would be one of those possibilities certainly.

REP. SMITH: Thank you very much. I don't think my colleagues have any more questions. I just want to again conclude by saying, you know, our subcommittee has many roles, but one of them that we consider to be the most important is being as supportive as possible to what the Special Operations Command is doing. We could not ask for a better partner than we have in you as the commander there, and look forward to continuing that relationship.

So thank you for coming out and testifying and we look forward to working with you. And with that, we are adjourned.

ADM. OLSON: Thank you very much.

Source