Defense Department Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Request

Federal News Service March 31, 2004 Wednesday

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE

SUBJECT: DEFENSE DEPARTMENT FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET REQUEST

CHAIRED BY: REPRESENTATIVE DUNCAN HUNTER (R-CA)

WITNESSES: ADMIRAL THOMAS B. FARGO, USN, COMMANDER, U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND; AND GENERAL LEON J. LAPORTE, USA, COMMANDER, U.S. FORCES KOREA

LOCATION: 2118 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): I want to follow up just briefly on Ike's question. The problem that I see-we do get fairly good support from the governments in many cases, not in all cases, but that even the governments that are supporting us, their people seem to be against us. And that-you know, that's a long-term problem. You know, as we saw in Spain, conceivably see other places that, you know, absent the support of the populace, these leaders, you know, making the right calls, supporting us as they should, are going to have a hard time doing that.

I offer that more as an observation than anything, that we really need to focus on the people themselves, not just on, you know, figuring out some way to get the leaders to go along with us. You know, because it's-you know, it's putting those people out on a limb-you know, people like Tony Blair and others who have been terrific in helping us. And they're out on a pretty serious limb when the public opinion is so solidly against them. And efforts to improve those diplomatic things are very important.

I just wanted to ask about North Korea. I participated in the same operation or same exercise that Congresswoman Davis and others did. And the challenge that I see is, where North Korea is headed seems unacceptable, which is they're advancing, in some cases in fits and starts, with their nuclear program and their missile program. And then they just seem to, sort of along the way, you know, blackmail us-you know, mess around with us, sign on to agreements they have no intention of following. But it's still this inexorable march towards, you know, nuclear capability and long-range missile capability. And that's a huge threat, as both of you mentioned, because of who they might sell it to-not to mention the fact that their possessing it alone is a problem. But the real problem is who they might sell it to.

So the current trajectory just doesn't look like it's going to get us where we need to be. Now, the alternative to that is to draw a line in the sand and say, you know, if you test another missile, if you continue to proceed with this, we will, you know-we will respond militarily to take that out. And there's a huge line of risks. And that's part of the reason the folks in South Korea are so nervous, is if we escalate in that way, they're the ones who are going to bear the brunt of it.

Given that sort of rock-and-a-hard-place scenario-you know, stay where we're at, let North Korea sort of drift in the direction that we desperately don't want them to go; or draw a hard line that may require military action with unpredictable consequences-what do you think is the best choice? And one sort of add-on to that-the last part of it-what do you think the likelihood is if we draw that line, they cross it, and say we go in and take out a nuclear facility or take out a proposed missile test, what do you think the likelihood is that North Korea would, you know, declare war on the South and respond militarily? Or is it possible at all that is bluster and that would cause them to pull their horns in? And what's your assessment?

ADM. FARGO: First of all --

REP. SMITH: Impossible questions to answer, I realize, but --

ADM. FARGO: -- I'm not a policymaker --

REP. SMITH: Right.

ADM. FARGO: So I would not attempt to answer what the policy should be. But I think we should have a strong military capability that is coupled with a very strong diplomatic effort. And we need to be able to demonstrate tremendous capability and resolve in both of those arenas. And I think we're doing that right now in the six-party talks and also with our military training and readiness in the Republic of Korea.

REP. SMITH: Certainly. And on the military question, if it came to a military conflict on the Korean peninsula, what is your assessment on, you know, whether or not we could be successful in pursuing a military option, if whatever line we drew was crossed?

GEN. LAPORTE: The threat that North Korea presents to the Republic of Korea and U.S. forces in Korea is a function of the proximity that those forces are to Seoul and to the military formations. So war on the peninsula would be a very, very destructive and costly war. But I would be quick to tell you that the ROK and the U.S. military alliance is a very ready and highly trained force, and Admiral Fargo's ability to reinforce is also very well developed.

REP. SMITH: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.