Hearing of the House Armed Services Committee on US Global Defense Posture - Transcript
HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
SUBJECT: U.S. GLOBAL DEFENSE POSTURE
CHAIRED BY: REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R-CA)
WITNESSES: DOUGLAS FEITH, UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR POLICY; RAYMOND DUBOIS, DEPUTY UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT; LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES CARTWRIGHT, DIRECTOR OF FORCE STRUCTURE, RESOURCES AND ASSESSMENT, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF; LINCOLN BLOOMFIELD, JR., ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF POLITICAL AND MILITARY AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE
LOCATION: 2118 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.
BODY:
REP. HUNTER: The hearing will come to order. Our guests this morning are Douglas J. Feith, undersecretary of Defense for Policy; Raymond DuBois, deputy undersecretary of Defense for Installations and Environment; Lieutenant General James E. Cartwright, United States Marine Corps, director of Force Structure, Resources and Assessment, Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Lincoln P. Bloomfield, Jr., assistant secretary, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department of State.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I wanted to ask, actually, about the size of the force as opposed to just where they're going to be located; and I guess not so much the size of the force, but from listening to your testimony, more the capabilities. Do we have enough troops with the right capabilities?
We had a lengthy discussion yesterday here with Secretary Wolfowitz about Iraq, the number of troops there. There was discussion about an exit strategy, a date when we're leaving. And I tend to agree, actually, with the secretary that you can't put exit dates on these things. You know, we're there until we complete the mission, and that's just the way it is.
But the reason the question is important is because of something else that I think we've all been hearing, from generals right down the line in the military, and that is concern that the overall force is-well, as General Sanchez put it during a briefing I had in Iraq, is stressed, which is a fancy way of saying we're not sure we have enough troops with the right capabilities to keep doing this for too much longer.
So, again, getting to the exit strategy, if we still have roughly 150,000 troops deployed between Iraq and Afghanistan, say, a year from now, which, from what Secretary Wolfowitz said, is not outside the realm of the possible-we don't have a clear idea of when the draw- downs are going to be happening-what more do we need to add?
Because there seems to be the clear impression from the military that we may have enough people to do it, but we've got the same people doing it over and over, month after month, to the point where they need to be rotated out and there's nobody to rotate in.
Have you looked at this and said, "We need to add a division of this specific capability"? We should spend the money we have to spend to add the troops. I'm not asking-please, I'm not asking the military to simply live within their existing budget and add people. We should absolutely provide the resources to add the people that they need.
But I just want to hear from as many of you who have an opinion on this, what do we need to add? Or is this all overblown? Can we just keep those same folks there, rotate a few in and out, and we don't really need to add anything?
MR. FEITH: Perhaps I should ask General Cartwright if he wants to comment. He's the director of Force Posture for the Joint Staff.
GEN. CARTWRIGHT: I think part of the discussion in the nearer term, as you alluded to with General Sanchez, has to do with the forces and capabilities we have today. There's a clear mandate out there, looking from a capabilities phase, and you see it in the way that the Army is moving towards its modular force.
The Navy has started to position itself towards a concept that has to do with surging of force.
REP. SMITH: I'm getting past-forgive me for interrupting. I mean past the speculative. And I totally agree with your assessment that we have to be ready for surprises, as counterintuitive as that may sound. I'm talking about concretely, what we're doing on the ground right now.
I know we're trying to think about off in the future. But right now it seems likely we're going to still be doing what we're doing a year from now, and we don't have the troops to do it. So specifically to that, beyond that broader thing, to keep doing what we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, long enough to be successful, what do we need to add?
MR. FEITH: Let me just jump in and highlight that what you are calling attention to is the important question of the usability of our forces. One of the things that Secretary Rumsfeld has talked about frequently is, we have over two million men and women in the Armed Forces. And, when we have, in round numbers, 150,000, let's say, deployed abroad, we hear about stress on the force. And as the Secretary pointed out, there's something really wrong with the way we are organized, and have been organized for many, many years if having 150,000 troops deployed abroad stresses a force of nearly 2-1/2 million total.
The argument is not that you have to increase the 2-1/2 million number. The argument is, you've got to get more usable forces out of that total force, so that you're not stressed when a relatively small fraction is deployed abroad for operations of this kind. And there is a very-this is not really my area, and the General will be able to shed more light on this, but there's a very long list of items that are being worked right now to-and it sometimes goes under the title of relieving stress on the force, but perhaps a better way to think about it is, increasing the usability of the forces that we have.
REP. SMITH: That's what I would be very curious about.
MR. BLOOMFIELD: And I think probably rather than give you ambiguity or rough orders, I would like to take it for the record and give you the numbers of exactly what we're doing, and the implications, how long it takes to do that, so that when you realize the benefit from it. I would be happy to do that and provide that information.
REP. SMITH: Okay, so basically the answer is, a year from now, we still have 150,000 troops deployed, your belief is that within that two million plus force, you don't need to add people to it, you need to add capabilities to those two million. And are you confident that we're moving forward to add those capabilities in such a way that if we had to keep those troops out there that long, we could make it work, and six months from now General Sanchez wouldn't be saying that they were stressed. That you're reacting to that.
GEN. CARTWRIGHT: I am confident that we are moving in a direction to put those capabilities out as quickly as we can. Time is an issue, and we're looking at the near-term as well as the long-term.
REP. SMITH: I have one other question on so-called peacekeeping, nation building, one of the other issues, I mean it has long been a contention of many that it's basically bad for the military to be engaged in those sorts of operations for a variety of different reasons, they're not trained to do it in many cases. It seems to me that that ship has more or less sailed. We are going to be engaged in nation building and peacekeeping. You know, we had a debate about this during the 2000 election, but after 9/11 there is no question this is going to happen. And what I'm very concerned about as I look at Iraq and to a lesser extent Afghanistan is, having made that shift, having said whatever we may think of peacekeeping missions, you know, the world has changed, we're going to engage in at least two of them, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and probably many more. We were just down in Haiti, we're still doing things down in Colombia. I don't see a correspondent response from the military to start training people to do those sorts of things. I don't think we have enough people with those capabilities. And it seems to me, well, part of it is sort of a feeling that the disdain for those missions is interfering with the acceptance that we now have to do them. I'm just curious, is there a cultural change going on which is saying, this is going to be the policy of the U.S. for better or worse, the military is going to be in places like Haiti, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan doing more than just fighting a war, they're going to be city planners for that matter. Figuring out how to make the sewers work, figuring out how to do military patrol. What are we doing to start training our military to deal with that new mission?
GEN. CARTWRIGHT: Let me take the first piece, which is, to some extent it may be cultural, but it's not something that we have not been doing over time. And we are moving in a direction where those skills are moving to the forefront, and are very important. And you know civil affairs type skills, as you say, city management, those types of things, and I think, and I'll turn this over to the Secretary, as we move forward, one of the things that we have done is, we have started a good dialogue and a policy that looks at theater security cooperation in the early stages, and making sure we have the right skills, because you'll find those skills are just as important when you get to, say, where we are in Iraq with Phase Four, those skills become important again. And having those skills in the military is important. Also, having those skills in the American government is important, and I'll push on.
MR. FEITH: It is a function that is important, and not just in a situation like Iraq. But we've had to do interventions recently in Liberia, in Haiti, because of the deficiencies, or the complete absence of civil administration. And we have an interest as a country, and I think the international community has an interest in being able to build up key aspects of civil administration in other countries, because otherwise we wind up with large problems that fall on the international community, and when they need forces quickly, they wind up falling disproportionately on the United States. And, one of the things that we noticed is that we have had to do operations to build up institutions like judiciaries, and police forces, and finance ministries and the like over the last dozen years or so, 15 years or so in Haiti, in the Balkans, in Afghanistan, in Iraq. And what the U.S. government has tended to do is improvise an effort every time we need it. And, now, we are looking at the idea, the administration is looking at the idea at the president's instruction of pulling together the capabilities that exist, because we do have some good capabilities and good experience that we've gained over the recent years, pulling those capabilities together into a standing-in effect, a standing task force, so that we have as a country, a greater ability to assist in those kinds of things, and we don't have to improvise a team every time we need one.
This is something that should not just be a United States activity. We would hope that the U.N., and other countries would act similarly and pull together their capabilities, and see if we can get these things coordinated, but it's definitely something that's worth doing so that we don't have all of the problems that come from approaching it as an ad hoc project each time the need arises. It's quite clear as we look into the future that we don't know where it's going to be, but we could be reasonably confident that activities to help other countries with their civil administration are going to be required.
MR. BLOOMFIELD: Congressman Smith, if I could just add a few points. Whenever we speak about the burdens we place on our military from the State Department we're very conscious that there are some other-there's relief from other quarters. And one other thing is, the coalition forces that are helping in Afghanistan and in Iraq today, so I just want to put in a word for our coalition partners, and that means that we place a high priority on the political solidarity with those host governments and their parliaments and their public opinion to continue supporting their own troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, even when there's threats to those forces. And they've been great about stepping up to the situation, and I think the Iraqi people will remember that for a long time in particular.
Secondly, at Sea Island, at the G-8 Summit, there was an initiative to encourage the G-8 countries to support greater peacekeeping training, greater capacity building around the world. And if, as we hope, this program unfolds successfully, hopefully the U.N. when they start calling around for battalions that are ready to move from other countries, there will be more readiness in more places, in Africa, and elsewhere, to answer that call. And that will be less of a burden on our own forces, potentially.
And the third piece, just picking up on what Secretary Feith said, there is an office being stood up within the State Department for post-conflict stabilization, and there will be individuals in the foreign service and in the professional ranks of the State Department who have the capability to go quickly and have effective skills in a post-conflict environment. So, we're trying to do our part so that we don't have to turn to the Pentagon and have them do all of it. We're trying to relieve that burden.
END