GOOD AFTERNOON AND WELCOME TO THE 156TH
LANDON LECTURE ON PUBLIC AFFAIRS.
THE LANDON LECTURES WERE BEGUN IN 1966
BY THE LATE GOVERNOR ALF LANDON
AND THE LATE K-STATE PRESIDENT JAMES MCCAIN.
THE GOAL OF THE LANDON LECTURES
IS TO BRING THE MOST PROMINENT PUBLIC FIGURES
TO KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY
TO DISCUSS THE PRESSING ISSUES
OF THE DAY.
WE ARE VERY PLEASED TODAY TO WELCOME
ADM. MICHAEL MULLEN, THE CHAIR OF THE
JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, TO THE LANDON PODIUM,
TO JOIN 155 PREDECESORS IN BRINGING
HIS THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS
ON IMPORTANT PUBLIC ISSUES.
BEFORE INTRODUCING MEMBERS OF THE PLATFORM PARTY, I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE
SOME DISTINGUISHED GUESTS IN THE AUDIENCE
THAT I ASK WOULD PLEASE STAND
BRIGADIER GENERAL DAVID PETERSON
DEPUTY COMANDING GENERAL
REAR DETACHMENT FORT RILEY
IN THE FIRST INFANTRY DIVISION
(APPLAUSE)
WE'RE ALSO PLEASED TO HAVE WITH US
DEBORAH MULLEN
WIFE OF ADMIRAL MULLEN
ASK HER TO PLEASE STAND AND BE RECOGNIZED
THANK YOU (APPLAUSE)
ON MY LEFT ON THE PLATFOM PARTY
IS PROFESSOR MELODY LAHUE
PROFESSOR OF APPAREL TEXTILES
AND INTERIOR DESIGN
AND PRESIDENT OF THE FACULTY SENATE
(APPLAUSE)
WAYNE STOSKOPF SENIOR
IN SPEECH AND AGRIBUSINESS
AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE
K-STATE STUDENT BODY
(APPLAUSE)
ON MY RIGHT IS ED SEATON
CHAIRMAN OF THE
LAND AND PATRONS AND EDITOR IN CHIEF AND
PUBLISHER OF THE
MANHATTAN MERCURY
(APPLAUSE)
AND... BEFORE I INTRODUCE DR.REAGAN I WANT TO TAKE JUST A MINUTE
TO THANK CHUCK FOR THE TWENTY SIX YEARS
HE'S BEEN CHAIR OF THE LANDON LECTURE SERIES
TODAY WILL MARK THE LAST OF THE LANDON LECTURE SERIES
THAT CHUCK WILL BE SERVING AS CHAIR OF
AND I REALLY APPRECIATE HIS SERVICE AND HIS EXEMPLARY LEADERSHIP
IN THE LANDON LECTURE SO DR.CHARLES REAGAN
(APPLAUSE)
ADMIRAL MULEN IS THE SEVENTEENTH CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
HE PREVIOUSLY SERVED AS THE NAVY'S 28TH CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
HIS OTHER FOUR STAR ASSIGNMENTS INCLUDE COMMANDER U.S. NAVAL FORCES EUROPE
AND COMMANDER ALLIED JOINT FORCE COMMAND IN NAPLES
AS A CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS, ADMIRAL MULLEN,
IS THE HIGHEST RANKING OFFICER IN THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES
AS A PRINCIPLE ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ON MILITARY MATTERS
ADMIRAL MULLEN HAS BEEN A RECIPIENT OF THE PRESTIGIOUS VISE ADMIRAL STOCKDALE LEADERSHIP AWARD
HE'S RECEIVED THE NAVY DISTINGUISHED SERVICE METAL
THE DEFENSE SUPERIOR SERVICE METAL AND MULTIPLE ALLEGIANT MERIT METALS
ADMIRAL MULLEN GRADUATED FROM THE NAVAL POST GRADUATE SCHOOL
WITH A MASTER IN SCIENCE DEGREE IN OPERATIONS RESEARCH, HE'S ALSO COMPLETED THE HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL ADVANCED MANAGMENT PROGRAM
AS COMMANDER ALLIED JOINT FORCE COMMAND NAPLES
ADMIRAL MULLEN HAD OPERATIONS RESPONSIBILITY
FOR NATIVE MISSIONS IN THE BULKANS, IRAQ, AND MEDITERRANEAN
AS COMMANDER U.S. NAVAL FORCES EUROPE
HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING OVERALL COMMAND
OPERATIONAL CONTROL AND COORDINATION OF U.S. NAVAL FORCES
AND THE EUROPEAN COMMAND AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY
PLEASE JOIN ME AND GIVE A BIG WILDCAT WELCOME TO ADMIRAL MICHAEL MULLEN CHAIR JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
(APPLAUSE)
GOOD AFTERNOON AND THANK YOU FOR THAT MERCIFULLY BRIEF INTRODUCTION
AND ALSO DR. REAGAN I'D LIKE TO JUST ADD
MY THANKS AND APPRECIATION FOR ALL YOUR'VE DONE HERE FOR SO MANY YEARS TO FACILITATE THIS SERIES
I KNOW HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO YOU AND ACTUALLY I THINK IMPORTANT TO ALL OF US
IT REALLY IS A GREAT HONOR FOR ME TO BE HERE TODAY AT KANSAS STATE
AND IN PARTICULAR FOR THE LANDON LECTURE SERIES
AND I'D LIKE TO RECOGNIZE... BEFORE I GET STARTED...
MORE IN DEPTH RECOGNIZE THOSE MEMBERS OF THE ROTC UNIT HERE
FOR THEIR WILLINGNESS TO SERVE AT THIS CRITICAL TIME IN OUR HISTORY
YOU REALLY ARE THE FUTURE
AND I'M REALLY HUMBLED BY WHAT YOUR ABOUT TO TAKE ON
THERE'S NO GREATER TASK, NO MORE MEANINGFUL CAREER
THEN TO LEAD AMERICA'S SONS AND DAUGHTERS IN UNIFORM
AND I KNOW YOU'LL BE GREAT SO THANK YOU
I'D ALSO LIKE TO RECOGNIZE AND REMAIN HUMBLED BY THE LONG AND PRESTIGES'S
LIST OF FORMER LANDON LECTURES WHO PRESIDED ME
INCLUDING MY BOSS AND PROUD KANSAN, SECRETARY BOB GATES INDEED THE SECRETARY COULD NOT HAVE
BEEN MORE GRACIOUS WHEN I TOLD HIM I WAS COMING HERE
HE ASSURED ME THAT I WOULD FIND YOU ALL A WRAPPED AND ENGAGING AUDIENCE EAGER
FOR EVERY STRAP OF WISDOM I HAD TO OFFER
THEN AGAIN HE SAID IF YOU BORE THEM OR IF YOU CLAIM
YOU KNOW WHO WILLIE IS, ALL BETS ARE OFF
AND I'D LIKE TO START OUR DISCUSSION BY TALKING ABOUT THE NATURE OF WAR TODAY
THE ESSENCE OF THESE CONFLICTS
WE FIND OURSELVES IN AGAINST RUTHLESS AND IRRECONCILABLE
ADVERSARIES, BUT ENOUGH ABOUT THE JAYHAWLKS
(LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE)
AND ACTUALLY AS SOMEONE THAT GREW UP IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
AS A BASKETBALL PLAYER UNDER THE EGESTS OF JOHN WOOD
AND I HAVE A SPECIAL APPRECIATION FOR THE GAME TONIGHT
I'M AMAZED YOUR ALL HERE QUIT FRANKLY
YOU KNOW IN EACH ERA OF AMERICAN HISTORY
AT LEAST IN TERMS OF ARMED CONFLICT, EACH ONE CAN BE DEFINED BY AN OVERARCHING STRATEGY
A DOCTRINE, IF YOU WILL, THAT CAPTURES THE PROPER USE OF MILITARY FORCE SUITABLE TO THE THREATS OF THE DAY.
DURING THE COLD WAR, IT WAS LARGELY THE STRATEGY OF CONTAINMENT
THAT DOMINATED OUR THINKING
THE NOTION THAT MILITARY FORCE, OR MORE IMPORTANTLY,
THE THREAT OF MILITARY FORCE
WAS BEST APPLIED IN PREVENTING THE SPREAD OF COMMUNISM,
THROUGH NUCLEAR DETERRENCE AND/OR CONVENTIONAL ALLIANCES.
SO CAME OUR NUCLEAR TRIAD … AND THE THEORY OF MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION … AND THE ADVENT OF NATO.
DURING WORLD WAR II, WE FOLLOWED A DOCTRINE VERY MUCH AKIN TO THAT USED BY GENERAL GRANT IN THE CIVIL WAR
ATTRITION OF THE ENEMY FORCE.
TO ACCOMPLISH THIS, HOWEVER, WE NEEDED ALSO TO ATTACK THE ENEMY POPULATION’S WILL TO FIGHT.
AND SO CAME THE BOMBINGS OF DRESDEN … AND HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI.
ON AND ON FARTHER BACK IN OUR PAST WE COULD GO …
FROM THE TRENCH WARFARE OF WORLD WAR ONE …
TO THE LIMITED CONVENTIONAL WAR WE FOUGHT AGAINST SPAIN IN 1898 …
TO THE UNCONVENTIONAL WARS WE FOUGHT AGAINST THE BARBARY PIRATES IN THE EARLY 1800S.
EACH ERA HAS SOMETHING TO TEACH.
FOR THERE IS NO SINGLE, DEFINING AMERICAN WAY OF WAR.
IT CHANGES OVER TIME, AND IT SHOULD CHANGE OVER TIME,
ADAPTING APPROPRIATELY TO THE MOST RELEVANT THREATS TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY …
AND THE MEANS BY WHICH THAT SECURITY IS BEST PRESERVED.
AS THE GODFATHER OF THEORY HIMSELF, CARL VON CLAUSEWITZ, ONCE OBSERVED,
WAR IS BUT AN INSTRUMENT OF POLICY -- BEHOLDEN TO IT --
AND BECAUSE POLICIES CHANGE, THE CONDUCT OF WAR MUST ALSO CHANGE.
WE HAVE AS A NATION BEEN AT WAR CONTINUOUSLY OVER THE LAST NINE YEARS.
INDEED, YOU COULD ARGUE THAT YOUR MILITARY HAS ACTUALLY BEEN ENGAGED IN COMBAT OPERATIONS SINCE 1990,
WHEN WE FOUGHT DESERT STORM AND THEN STAYED AROUND
TO ENFORCE SANCTIONS AND NO-FLY ZONES AGAINST SADDAM.
THE ENEMIES WE FACED IN THAT TIME HAVE CERTAINLY VARIED.
WE QUICKLY DEPOSED THE TALIBAN FROM POWER
SHORTLY AFTER THE ATTACKS OF 9-11.
AND THEN WENT ON TO DEFEAT THE CONVENTIONAL FORCES OF SADDAM’S BAATHIST REGIME,
LATER STRUGGLING TO THROW BACK A RAMPANT SUNNI INSURGENCY.
TODAY, THE WARS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN HAVE GENERALLY BECOME
A FIGHT AGAINST A SYNDICATE OF ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS, LED BY AL QAEDA,
AND SUPPORTED BY A HOST OF BOTH STATE AND NON-STATE ACTORS.
THE EPICENTER OF THIS FIGHT REMAINS, IN MY VIEW,
THE BORDER AREA BETWEEN AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN …
WHERE, NOT ONLY DOES AL QAEDA’S LEADERSHIP PLOT AND PLAN TO ATTACK AMERICA,
BUT ALSO WHERE A NEW COLLECTION OF LIKE-MINDED EXTREMIST GROUPS
PARTNER TOGETHER TO SUPPORT THEM AND TO FURTHER DESTABILIZE THE ENTIRE REGION.
IN OTHER WORDS, THESE WARS, ALSO, HAVE CHANGED IN CHARACTER.
I HAVE WATCHED -- AND ADVISED --
TWO ADMINISTRATIONS AS THEY HAVE DEALT WITH THIS STRUGGLE,
AND I HAVE COME TO THREE CONCLUSIONS,
THREE PRINCIPLES, ABOUT THE PROPER USE OF MODERN MILITARY FORCES.
THE FIRST IS THAT MILITARY POWER SHOULD NOT, MAYBE CANNOT, BE THE LAST RESORT OF THE STATE.
MILITARY FORCES ARE SOME OF THE MOST FLEXIBLE AND ADAPTABLE TOOLS AVAILABLE TO POLICYMAKERS.
WE CAN -- MERELY BY OUR PRESENCE --
HELP ALTER CERTAIN BEHAVIOR.
BEFORE A SHOT IS EVEN FIRED, WE CAN BOLSTER A DIPLOMATIC ARGUMENT,
SUPPORT A FRIEND OR DETER AN ENEMY.
WE CAN ASSIST RAPIDLY IN DISASTER RELIEF EFFORTS,
AS WE DID IN THE AFTERMATH OF HAITI’S EARTHQUAKE.
WE CAN HELP GATHER INTELLIGENCE … SUPPORT RECONNAISSANCE … AND PROVIDE SECURITY.
AND WE CAN DO SO ON LITTLE OR NO NOTICE.
THAT EASE OF USE IS CRITICAL FOR DETERRENCE --
AN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE THAT PROVIDES IMMEDIATE, TANGIBLE EFFECTS.
IT IS ALSO VITAL WHEN INNOCENT LIVES ARE AT RISK.
SO, YES, THE MILITARY MAY BE THE BEST AND SOMETIMES THE FIRST TOOL.
IT SHOULD NEVER BE THE ONLY TOOL.
THE TANGIBLE EFFECTS OF MILITARY ENGAGEMENT MAY GIVE POLICYMAKERS A LEVEL OF COMFORT NOT
NECESSARILY OR WHOLLY JUSTIFIED.
AS WE HAVE SEEN,
THE INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT IS MORE FLUID AND MORE COMPLEX THAN EVER BEFORE.
NOT EVERY INTENDED TARGET OF ONE’S DETERRENCE WILL ACT RATIONALLY,
AND NOT EVERY GOOD INTENTION WILL BE THUS RECEIVED.
LONGER LASTING, MORE SUSTAINABLE EFFECTS WILL MOST ASSUREDLY DEMAND A WHOLE-OF-GOVERNMENT,
IF NOT A WHOLE-OF-NATION EFFORT.
DEFENSE AND DIPLOMACY ARE SIMPLY NO LONGER DISCRETE CHOICES,
ONE TO BE APPLIED WHEN THE OTHER ONE FAILS,
BUT MUST, IN FACT, COMPLEMENT ONE ANOTHER THROUGHOUT THE MESSY PROCESS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS.
AS PRESIDENT OBAMA NOTED IN HIS WEST POINT SPEECH,
WHEN HE ANNOUNCED HIS STRATEGY FOR AFGHANISTAN,
“WE CANNOT COUNT ON MILITARY MIGHT ALONE.
WE HAVE TO INVEST IN OUR HOMELAND SECURITY …
WE HAVE TO IMPROVE AND BETTER COORDINATE OUR INTELLIGENCE,
AND WE WILL HAVE TO USE DIPLOMACY,
BECAUSE NO ONE NATION CAN MEET THE CHALLENGES OF AN INTERCONNECTED WORLD ACTING ALONE.”
MY FEAR, QUIT FRANKLY, IS THAT WE AREN'T MOVING FAST ENOUGH IN THIS REGARD.
U.S. FOREIGN POLICY IS STILL TOO DOMINATED BY THE MILITARY
TOO DEPENDENT UPON THE GENERALS AND ADMIRALS WHO LEAD OUR MAJOY OVER SEAS COMMANDS
IT'S ON THING TO BE ABLE AND WILLING TO SERVE AS EMERGENCY RESPONDERS
QUIT ANOTHER TO ALWAYS HAVE TO BE THE FIRE CHIEF
SECRETARIES CLINTON AND GATES HAVE CALLED FOR MORE FUNDING AND MORE EMPHASIS ON OUR "SOFT POWER"
AND I COULD NOT AGREE WITH THEM MORE
SHOULD WE CHOOSE TO EXERT AMERICAN INFLUENCE SOLELY THROUGH OUR TROOPS,
WE SHOULD EXPECT TO SEE THAT INFLUENCE DIMINISH IN TIME.
IN FACT, I WOULD ARGUE THAT IN FUTURE STRUGGLES OF THE ASYMMETRIC,
COUNTERINSURGENT VARIETY,
WE OUGHT TO MAKE IT A PRE-CONDITION OF COMMITTING OUR TROOPS --
THAT WE WILL DO SO ONLY IF AND WHEN
THE OTHER INSTRUMENTS OF NATIONAL POWER ARE READY TO ENGAGE AS WELL.
THERE IS A BROADER ISSUE INVOLVED HERE.
FOR, IN ADDITION TO BRINGING THE FULL WEIGHT OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO BEAR,
WE MUST ALSO BRING OUR ALLIES AND PARTNERS WITH US TO THE FIGHT.
FORTY-TWO OTHER NATIONS FIGHT ALONGSIDE US IN AFGHANISTAN,
AS DID SO MANY OTHERS IN IRAQ.
WHETHER BY FORMAL ALLIANCE OR BY INFORMAL AGREEMENT,
THESE MULTI-NATIONAL COMMITMENTS
LEND NOT ONLY A HIGHER SENSE OF LEGITIMACY TO THE EFFORT,
THEY LEND TO LOCAL POPULATIONS CERTAIN SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE
WHICH WE ALONE DO NOT POSSESS.
THE AUSTRALIANS ARE EXPERTS AT COUNTER-INSURGENCY WARFARE …
THE BRITISH HAVE A LONG TRADITION OF SERVICE IN THAT PART OF THE WORLD
AND BRING UNIQUE INSIGHTS …
THE GERMANS AND FRENCH AND ITALIANS HAVE SUPERB NATIONAL POLICE ORGANIZATIONS FOR AFGHANS TO EMULATE.
IN MY VIEW,
WHATEVER DRAWBACKS OF ALLIANCE MANAGEMENT THERE MAY BE,
THEY ARE MORE THAN OUTWEIGHED BY THE BENEFITS OF OPERATING IN UNISON.
WITH THE U.S. PROVIDING THE BULK OF FORCES,
IT SHOULD COME AS NO SURPRISE TO ANYONE THAT SOME MAY AVAIL THEMSELVES OF LESSER CONTRIBUTIONS.
BUT THAT DOESN’T DETRACT FROM THE VERY REAL IMPACT
MANY OF THEM MAKE.
IT ALSO DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULDN'T EXHORT THEM
TO DO MORE.
FOR OUR PART,
WE HAVE BECOME THE BEST COUNTER-INSURGENCY FORCE IN THE WORLD,
AND WE DIDN’T DO IT ALONE.
WE HAD A LOT OF HELP.
THAT BRINGS ME TO NUMBER TWO …
FORCE SHOULD -- TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE --
BE APPLIED IN A PRECISE AND PRINCIPLED WAY.
WAR COSTS THE SOCIETIES THAT ENGAGE IN IT A GREAT DEAL --
LIVES AND RESOURCES DIVERTED FROM PURSUITS
THAT A MORE PEACEFUL TIME WOULD ALLOW.
EVEN NOW,
AS WE ARE POISED TO REACH 1,000 U.S. TROOP DEATHS IN AFGHANISTAN,
WE'RE REMINDED OF THE THOUSANDS MORE
AFGHANS WHO HAVE BEEN KILLED
AND THE HUNDREDS OF OTHER COALITION SOLDIERS
WHO HAVE LIKEWISE PERISHED …
NOT TO MENTION THE PROPERTY AND INFRASTRUCTURE DAMAGE
THAT WILL YET TAKE YEARS FROM WHICH TO RECOVER.
THOUGH IT CAN NEVER LESSEN THE PAIN OF SUCH LOSS,
PRECISELY APPLYING FORCE IN A PRINCIPLED MANNER
CAN HELP REDUCE THOSE COSTS AND ACTUALLY IMPROVE
OUR CHANCES OF SUCCESS.
CONSIDER FOR A MOMENT
ONGOING OPERATIONS IN MARJAH IN AFGHANISTAN.
GENERAL MCCHRYSTAL CHOSE TO MOVE INTO THIS PART OF SOUTHERN AFGHANISTAN
SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE IT WAS A HUB OF TALIBAN ACTIVITY.
THERE THEY HAD SWAY OVER THE PEOPLE.
THERE THEY WERE ABLE TO ADVANCE THEIR INTERESTS TO OTHER PLACES IN THE COUNTRY.
IT WASN’T GROUND WE WERE INTERESTED IN RE-TAKING,
SO MUCH AS ENEMY INFLUENCE WE WERE INTERESTED IN DEGRADING.
AND SO, THIS IS A MUCH MORE TRANSPARENT OPERATION.
WE DID NOT SWOOP IN UNDER COVER OF DARKNESS.
WE TOLD THE PEOPLE OF MARJAH AND THE ENEMY HIMSELF
WHEN WE WERE COMING AND WHERE WE WOULD BE GOING.
WE DID NOT PREP THE BATTLEFIELD WITH CARPET BOMBING OR MISSILE STRIKES.
WE SIMPLY WALKED IN, ON TIME.
BECAUSE, FRANKLY, THE BATTLEFIELD ISN’T NECESSARILY A FIELD ANYMORE.
IT’S IN THE MINDS OF THE PEOPLE.
IT’S WHAT THEY BELIEVE TO BE TRUE THAT MATTERS.
AND WHEN THEY BELIEVE THEY ARE SAFER WITH AFGHAN AND COALITION TROOPS IN THEIR MIDST
AND LOCAL GOVERNANCE AT THEIR SERVICE,
THEY WILL RESIST THE INTIMIDATION OF THE TALIBAN AND REFUSE TO PERMIT
THEIR LAND FROM EVER AGAIN BECOMING A SAFE HAVEN FOR TERROR.
THAT IS WHY THE THRESHOLD FOR THE USE OF INDIRECT FIRE
IN THIS OPERATION IS SO HIGH.
THAT’S WHY GEN. MCCHRYSTAL ISSUED MORE RESTRICTIVE RULES FOR NIGHT RAIDS.
AND IT’S WHY HE HAS COALITION TROOPS OPERATING IN SUPPORT OF AFGHAN SOLDIERS
AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
IN THIS TYPE OF WAR …
WHEN THE OBJECTIVE IS NOT THE ENEMY’S DEFEAT BUT THE PEOPLE’S SUCCESS …
LESS REALLY IS MORE.
EACH TIME AN ERRANT BOMB --
OR A BOMB ACCURATELY AIMED BUT AGAINST THE WRONG TARGET --
KILLS OR HURTS CIVILIANS,
WE RISK SETTING OUR STRATEGY BACK MONTHS, IF NOT YEARS.
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE TALIBAN KILL
AND MAIM FAR MORE THAN WE DO … CIVILIAN CASUALTY INCIDENTS,
SUCH AS THOSE WE’VE RECENTLY SEEN IN AFGHANISTAN,
WILL HURT US MORE IN THE LONG RUN
THAN ANY TACTICAL SUCCESS WE MAY ACHIEVE AGAINST THE ENEMY.
PEOPLE EXPECT MORE FROM US.
THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO EXPECT MORE FROM US.
NOW, THERE HAS BEEN MUCH DEBATE OVER HOW TO BALANCE TRADITIONAL
AND IRREGULAR WARFARE CAPABILITIES IN OUR MILITARY.
AS AN UNDERPINNING,
, I SEE THIS PRINCIPLE APPLYING TO BOTH.
IT CHOOSES QUALITY OF PEOPLE,
TRAINING AND SYSTEMS OVER QUANTITY OF PLATFORMS.
IT MEANS THAT WE CHOOSE TO GO SMALL IN NUMBER
BEFORE WE GO HOLLOW IN CAPABILITY.
AND IT FAVORS INNOVATION --
IN LEADERS, IN DOCTRINE, IN ORGANIZATION, AND IN TECHNOLOGY.
PRECISE AND PRINCIPLED FORCE APPLIES WHETHER
WE ARE ATTACKING AN ENTRENCHED ENEMY OR SECURING THE POPULATION --
IN EITHER CASE IT PROTECTS THE INNOCENT …
WE PROTECT THE INNOCENT, IT'S WHO WE ARE
… AND IN SO DOING, WE BETTER PRESERVE BOTH OUR FREEDOM OF ACTION
AND OUR SECURITY INTERESTS.
PRESERVING OUR SECURITY INTERESTS IS ALSO BETTER ENSURED
BY WHAT I CONSIDER MY THIRD AND FINAL PRINCIPLE:
POLICY AND STRATEGY
SHOULD CONSTANTLY STRUGGLE WITH ONE ANOTHER.
SOME IN THE MILITARY NO DOUBT WOULD
PREFER POLITICAL LEADERSHIP THAT LAYS OUT A SPECIFIC STRATEGY
AND THEN GETS OUT OF THE WAY,
LEAVING THE BALANCE OF THE IMPLEMENTATION TO COMMANDERS IN THE FIELD.
BUT THE EXPERIENCE OF THE
LAST NINE YEARS TELLS US TWO THINGS:
A CLEAR STRATEGY FOR MILITARY OPERATIONS IS ESSENTIAL,
AND THAT STRATEGY WILL HAVE TO CHANGE AS THOSE OPERATIONS EVOLVE.
IN OTHER WORDS,
SUCCESS IN THESE TYPES OF WARS IS ITERATIVE,
IT IS NOT DECISIVE.
THERE ISN’T GOING TO BE A SINGLE DAY WHEN WE STAND UP AND SAY …
THAT’S IT, IT’S OVER. WE’VE WON.
WE WILL WIN, BUT WE WILL DO SO ONLY OVER TIME
AND ONLY AFTER NEAR-CONSTANT RE-ASSESSMENT AND ADJUSTMENT.
QUITE FRANKLY,
IT WILL FEEL A LOT LESS LIKE A KNOCKOUT PUNCH
AND A LOT MORE LIKE RECOVERING FROM A LONG ILLNESS.
THE WORST POSSIBLE WORLD I CAN IMAGINE IS ONE IN WHICH MILITARY COMMANDERS
ARE INVENTING OR DIVINING THEIR STRATEGIES --
THEIR OWN REMEDIES --
IN THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR POLITICAL GUIDANCE,
SOMETIMES AFTER AN INITIAL GOAL OR
MISSION HAS BEEN OVERTAKEN BY EVENTS.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE -- AND NEED --
POLITICAL LEADERSHIP CONSTANTLY IMMERSED IN THE WEEK-TO-WEEK FLOW
OF THE CONFLICT, WILLING AND ABLE TO ADJUST AS NECESSARY,
BUT ALWAYS LEAVING MILITARY COMMANDERS ENOUGH LEEWAY
TO DO WHAT IS EXPECTED OF THEM.
POLICYMAKERS, AFTER ALL,
HAVE OTHER CONCERNS BEYOND THOSE OF THE MILITARY
THAT MUST BE ADEQUATELY CONSIDERED WHEN TAKING A NATION TO WAR --
INCLUDING COST, DOMESTIC SUPPORT, INTERNATIONAL REACTION,
AND SO FORTH.
AT THE SAME TIME,
MILITARY LEADERS AT ALL LEVELS MUST BE COMPLETELY FRANK
ABOUT THE LIMITS OF WHAT MILITARY POWER CAN ACHIEVE,
WITH WHAT RISK …
AND IN WHAT TIMEFRAME.
WE OWE CIVILIAN LEADERS OUR CANDOR IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
AND OUR UNWAVERING SUPPORT ONCE THE DECISION IS MADE.
THAT DOESN’T MEAN EVERY BIT OF MILITARY ADVICE WILL BE FOLLOWED.
WE SHOULDN’T EXPECT SO.
BUT IT DOES MEAN THAT MILITARY CONCERNS
WILL BE PROPERLY CONSIDERED.
AND WE CAN ASK FOR NOTHING MORE.
IN THIS MOST RECENT AFGHANISTAN-PAKISTAN STRATEGY REVIEW,
THE PRESIDENT DEVOTED AN EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT OF TIME TO GETTING IT RIGHT …
TO UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE OF THE FIGHT WE ARE IN
AND THE DIRECTION IN WHICH HE WANTED TO TAKE IT.
AND THEN HE LAID IT OUT, CLEARLY, SIMPLY, FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
AND WE ARE EXECUTING.
IN DECEMBER, HE WILL REVIEW WHERE WE ARE
AND HOW WE ARE DOING,
AND I THINK WE SHOULD ALL BE PREPARED TO ADJUST
IF EVENTS ON THE GROUND DEEM IT NECESSARY.
THE NOTION PROFFERED BY SOME
THAT ONCE SET A WAR POLICY CANNOT BE CHANGED,
OR THAT TO DO SO IMPLIES SOME SORT OF WEAKNESS,
STRIKES ME NOT ONLY AS INCOMPATIBLE WITH OUR OWN HISTORY,
BUT ALSO AS QUITE DANGEROUS.
LINCOLN DID NOT EMANCIPATE THE SLAVES WHEN FT. SUMTER WAS FIRED UPON.
HE MADE THAT POLICY CHANGE WHEN HE DEEMED IT MOST NECESSARY.
THOUGH HE FAVORED A “GERMANY FIRST” POLICY,
FDR STILL STRUGGLED TO PROPERLY BALANCE
THE WAR EFFORTS AGAINST BOTH JAPAN AND HITLER’S GERMANY.
AND KENNEDY DID NOT EMBARK ON THE WAR IN VIETNAM
WITH ANY SENSE THAT HIS SUCCESSORS WOULD BE FIGHTING IT AT ALL,
MUCH LESS THE WAY THEY DID.
CONTRARY TO POPULAR IMAGINATION,
WAR HAS NEVER BEEN A SET-PIECE AFFAIR.
THE ENEMY ADAPTS TO YOUR STRATEGY,
AND YOU ADAPT TO HIS, AND SO YOU KEEP THE INTERPLAY GOING BETWEEN POLICY AND STRATEGY
UNTIL YOU FIND THE RIGHT COMBINATION AT THE RIGHT TIME.
WHAT WORKED WELL IN IRAQ
WILL NOT NECESSARILY WORK IN AFGHANISTAN.
WHAT WORKED WELL TODAY
WILL NOT NECESSARILY WORK TOMORROW.
THE DAY YOU STOP ADJUSTING IS THE DAY YOU LOSE.
TO QUOTE ONE OF WAR’S GREATEST STUDENTS,
WINSTON CHURCHILL,
“YOU CAN ALWAYS COUNT ON AMERICANS
TO DO THE RIGHT THING --
AFTER THEY'VE TRIED EVERYTHING ELSE.”
TRYING EVERYTHING ELSE IS NOT WEAKNESS.
IT MEANS WE DON’T GIVE UP.
IT MEANS WE NEVER STOP LEARNING.
AND IN MY VIEW,
IF WE HAVE LEARNED NOTHING ELSE FROM THESE TWO WARS OF OURS,
IT IS THAT A FLEXIBLE,
BALANCED APPROACH TO USING MILITARY FORCE IS BEST.
WE MUST NOT LOOK UPON THE USE OF MILITARY FORCES
ONLY AS A LAST RESORT …
BUT AS POTENTIALLY THE BEST,
FIRST OPTION WHEN COMBINED WITH OTHER INSTRUMENTS
OF NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POWER.’
WE MUST NOT TRY TO USE FORCE ONLY
IN AN OVERWHELMING CAPACITY …
BUT IN THE PROPER CAPACITY,
AND IN A PRECISE AND PRINCIPLED MANNER.
AND WE MUST NOT SHRINK FROM THE TUG OF WAR --
NO PUN INTENDED --
THAT INEVITABLY PLAYS OUT BETWEEN POLICY-MAKING
AND STRATEGY EXECUTION.
SUCH INTERPLAY IS HEALTHY FOR THE REPUBLIC
AND ESSENTIAL FOR ULTIMATE SUCCESS.
FOR CHURCHILL ALSO NOTED THAT
IN WAR AS IN LIFE,
AND I QUOTE “IT IS OFTEN NECESSARY,
WHEN SOME CHERISHED SCHEME HAS FAILED,
TO TAKE UP THE BEST ALTERNATIVE OPEN,
AND IF SO, IT IS FOLLY NOT TO WORK
FOR IT WITH ALL YOUR MIGHT.”
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN,
YOUR MILITARY IS WORKING FOR YOU WITH ALL ITS MIGHT.
WE HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN
WHO STARTED THESE WARS,
AND WE WILL NOT FORGET THOSE WHO
HAVE PERISHED AS A RESULT.
WE WILL STAY AT IT FOR AS LONG AS IT TAKES.
AND WE WILL SUCCEED FOR AS LONG AS YOU
SUPPORT US IN THE ENDEAVOR.
THANK YOU.
(APPLAUSE)
WE WILL HAVE SOME TIME FOR SOME QUESTIONS.
WE'LL ASK MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE TO PLEASE
COME TO THE MICROPHONES AND STATE YOUR QUESTIONS
SO THAT EVERYBODY CAN HEAR THEM. THANK YOU.
DR. MULLEN, MY NAME IS SAMUEL BRINTON
AND I'M CURRENTLY THE PRESIDENT OF THE GROUP
LGBTQ AND MORE REPRESENTING OUR LESBIAN GAY
BISEXUAL TRANSGENDER AND ALLIED STUDENTS HERE AT KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY.
SIR I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT
OF THE REPEAL OF THE DISCRIMINATORY
POLICY (EXCUSE ME) DON'T ASK DON'T TELL.
MY QUESTION FOR YOU IS SIMPLE,
WHAT CAN I AS A STUDENT DO TO SUPPORT YOUR WORK?
SIR, WHAT CAN WE DO TO MAKE SERVICE AND OUR ARMED SERVICES
EQUAL FOR EVERY CITIZEN?
WELL I THINK CLEARLY WHAT SECRETARY GATES AND
I HAVE LAID OUT OVER THE NEXT YEAR
NOT QUIT A YEAR BUT TOWARDS THE END OF THIS YEAR
IS THE REVIEW, TO UNDERSTAND
EXACTLY WHAT THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THIS CHANGE
SHOULD THE LAW CHANGE, WOULD BE
AND I AS A SENIOR MILITARY OFFICER, FEEL RESPONSIBLE TO
BOTH UNDERSTAND THAT IMPACT IN ORDER TO LEAD IT.
AS WE IMPLEMENT A POLICY THAT WOULD BE A NEW POLICY
AND IN SPECIFICALLY WHAT YOU CAN DO
IS TO LEAD RESPONSIBLY AS WELL.
ONE OF MY BIGGEST CONCERNS IS THAT THIS REVIEW AND THIS ISSUE
NOT PUT A HEAVILY STRAINED MILITARY IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS DEBATE
IN A WAY THAT BURDENS THEM
WHEN THEY ARE PRESSED AS HARD AS THEY'VE EVER BEEN PRESSED
AND PERFORMING AT AN EXCEPTIONAL LEVEL.
THERE HAS BEEN CRITICISM THAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE TOO LONG
TO DO THIS IN FACT I'VE SPENT A FAIR AMOUNT OF TIME ON THIS
BEFORE MY TESTIMONY LOOKING FOR WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE
OBJECTIVE DATA IN TERMS OF IMPACT ON THE FORCE.
THERE'S A LOT OF STRONGLY HELD VIEWS ON IT.
THERE ARE A LOT OF POLLS ON IT.
BUT IN FACT, WHAT WE WANT TO DO OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS
IS REALLY UNDERSTAND THAT
IMPACT OBJECTIVELY. THE IMPACT
HOW OUR TROOPS FEEL ABOUT IT. HOW THEIR FAMILIES FEEL ABOUT IT.
HOW THE INFLUENCERS, IF YOU WILL
FAMILIES WHO RAISE YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN TO COME AND SERVE
AND HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT IT AND HAVE THAT INTERACTION,
IF YOU WILL, AS WE MOVE FORWARD THROUGH THESE REVIEWS.
SO MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE,
RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP FROM YOUR POSITION AND OTHERS IMPOSITIONS
OF RESPONSIBILITY THAT CARE ABOUT THIS ISSUE
WOULD BE WHAT I ASK FOR.
I THANK YOU SIR.
ADMIRAL MULLEN, THANK YOU FOR COMING TO SPEAK WITH US TODAY.
IN THE RECENT AFGHAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
RED FLAGS WENT UP PRETTY MUCH BEFORE THE VOTES HAD BEGUN TO BE COUNTED.
ABDULLAH ABDULLAH WAS GOING TO CHALLANGE
BUT BOWED OUT AFTER WHAT MANY PEOPLE CONSIDERED EXTERNAL PRESSURE.
IT SEEMS LIKE WE'VE GIVEN THE AFGHANS A CHOICE BETWEEN
RELIGIOUS EXTREMIST AND A CORRUPT GOVERNMENT,
THAT FRANKLY NO ONE SEEMS TO SUPPORT.
CERTAINLY YOU RAISE CONCERNS WE ALL HAVE
BOTH GETTING TO AND THROUGH THE ELECTIONS
AND WITH THE LEVEL OF CORRUPTION THAT WE KNOW EXISTS IN AFGHANISTAN
AND ITS BEEN AN ISSUE THAT'S BEEN
ADDESSED AT EVERY LEVEL IN AFGHANISTAN
AND PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT LEVEL
IS WITH THE POLITICAL LEADERSHIP IN AFGHANISTAN.
PRESIDENT KARZAI LAID OUT IN HIS INAUGURATION ADDRESS
HE HAS SUM UP WHAT STEPS HE IS GOING TO TAKE
TO GET AT THE CORRUPTION ISSUE
AND QUIT FRANKLY, AND IT GOES BACK TO IN GREAT PART WHAT I WAS
SPEAKING ABOUT A FEW MINUTES AGO
THAT THE MILITARY ASPECT OF THIS CAN NOT SUCCEED
WITHOUT SUCCESSING OTHER AREAS.
AND THERE HAS TO BE, HAVE TO BE SIGNIFICANT STEPS TAKEN
ON THE PART OF PRESIDENT KARZAI AND
OTHER LEADERS IN AFGHANISTAN TO ELIMINATE CORRUPTION.
ITS BEEN THERE FOR A LONG TIME.
ITS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY OVER NIGHT.
BUT WHERE IT HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BEFORE IT IS BEING ADDRESSED NOW
AND WE CAN'T MOVE FORWARD IN A POSITIVE WAY
UNLESS IT CONTINUES TO BE
AND ITS TOO EARLY TO TELL HOW MUCH IS ACTUALLY
WHAT AFFECTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN.
I MEAN WE'VE GOT A... THERE IS A CRIMES TASK FORCE WHICH IS THERE.
WE'RE WORKING HARD ON RULE OF LAW NOT JUST WE BUT
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY WITH AFGHANISTAN
AND WHAT DOES THAT MEAN
WE'RE ADDRESSING THIS NOT JUST AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL BUT QUIT FRANKLY DOWN
TO IN THE DISTRICTS AND ONE OF THE FORCES WE'RE
MOST CONCERNED ABOUT ARE THE LOCAL POLICE.
WE'VE ACTAULLY MADE QUIT A BIT OF PROGRESS
IN TERMS OF TRAINING THE LOCAL AFGHAN...
I'M SORRY THE AFGHAN SECURITY FORCES, THE ARMY IN PARTICULAR
BUT WE STILL GOT A LONG WAY TO GO WITH THE POLICE
AND CORRUPTIONS AT THE HEART OF THAT AS WELL.
BUT ADMIRAL MULLEN, HOW CONFIDENT CAN WE BE IN A MAN WHO
CAME TO POWER IN A CORRUPT ELECTION TO ADDRESS CORRUPTION
WELL... HE IS A DUALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT
AND WE WENT THROUGH A PROCESS, QUIT FRANKLY THAT
NOT ONLY THE UNITED STATES INDORSED IN TERMS OF THE ELECTION
BUT ALSO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
SO HE WAS DUALLY ELECTED BY HIS PEOPLE
AND HE NOW HAS TO PERFORM IN THIS AREA.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR COMING TO SPEAK TODAY SIR,
YOU SPOKE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF PURSUING SOFTPOWER
AS WELL AS FURTHER DISSENTING OF FOREIGN POLICY FOR MILITARY DOMINANCE.
BUT I'M CURIOUS IS TO HOW THESE GOALS CAN BE ACHIEVED
GIVEN THAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION REFUSES
TO MAKE A NUCLEAR NON FIRST USE DECLARATORY POLICY
IN THE UPCOMING NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW.
WELL THE POSTURE REVIEW IS NOT DONE
SO QUIT FRANKLY I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OUTCOME IS.
WITH RESPECT TO THAT
IT WILL BE DONE IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS.
... THE PART THAT I THINK IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT ABOUT,
AT LEAST I BELIEVE IS IMPORTANT ABOUT WHAT I SAID
IS THE WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT APPROACH HERE.
THAT WE MUST WORK TOGETHER.
AND I TALKED ABOUT IN PARTICULAR SECRETARIES CLINTON AND GATES
AND BOTH SECRETARY GATES AND I
HAVE ADVOCATED FOR INCREASING THE RESOURCES
IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT
THAT WAS IN GREAT PART A DRAMATICALLY REDUCED
IN THE EARLY 90'S.
AND SPECIFICALLY AND WE JUST DID A LOT OF WORK WITH U.S.A.I.D.
IN HAITI AND THEY WERE TERRIFIC
BUT IT WAS AN AGENCY THAT HAD BEEN REDUCED BY A SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE
AND ESSENTIALLY HAD BECOME ALMOST A CONTRACTING AGENCY.
THAT PART OF OUR GOVERNMENT... THE POLICY DIPLOMACY PIECE
I THINK NEEDS TO BE CONTINUED TO BE ENERGIZED AND
WE'RE MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION ITS JUST WE DIDN'T DO
IT FOR A LONG TIME WE TOOK THE RESOURCES AWAY
AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A DECADE OR TWO
BEFORE WE CAN GET ALL OF THAT BACK
AND I JUST CAN'T SPEAK TO... I KNOW CERTAINLY
THE PRESIDENT'S POSITION WITH RESPECT TO
NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND THEIR EXISTENCE
AND WHERE WE GO IS VERY CLEAR.
CERTAINLY THE, FROM WHAT I KNOW FROM WHAT I SEE
I THINK THE N.P.R.,
THE NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW WILL SPEAK TO THAT
BUT I WOULDN'T TALK ABOUT WHAT ITS GOING TO SAY UNTIL ITS ACTUALLY PUBLISHED.
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE ARE ARTICLES OUT THERE
SEEMINGLY REPORTING THEMSELVES AS KNOWING
EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS.
THANK YOU.
THANKS VERY MUCH FOR YOUR DISCUSSION TODAY.
I THINK YOUR POSITIONS ARE VERY ENLIGHTENING AND HOPEFUL FOR OUR FUTURE.
I ESPECIALLY ENJOYED YOUR EMPHASIS ON THAT
TO WIN THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM WE HAVE TO
WIN THE HEARTS AND MINDS
OF THE CITIZENS AROUND THE WORLD.
I'M WONDERING IF THIS MIGHT
BE A TIME IN HISTORY WHERE WE COULD
ACCOMPLISH THAT BY REDUCING OUR
MILITARY PRESENCE THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.
AND PERHAPS REDUCING OUR NUMBER OF MILITARY BASES
THAT WE HAVE IN OTHER COUNTRIES OR IF YOU THINK THAT WOULD BE INFEASIBLE.
A PART FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AND I GREW UP IN THE NAVY
AND I GREW UP AROUND THE WORLD AND
THE UNITED STATES AT LEAST WHAT I LEARNED
OVER THE COURSE OF MY CAREER
WAS A LOT ABOUT MY COUNTRY FROM OTHER PEOPLES VIEWS
AND HOW HIGHLY WE ARE REGARDED
HOW HOPEFUL THEY ARE FOR OUR LEADERSHIP
ACROSS A VAST ARRAY OF ISSUES.
NOT JUST ON THE MILITARY SIDE AND IN A TIME WHERE
THE CHALLENGES THAT ARE OUT THERE RIGHT NOW
AND THE TERROR PIECE IS ONE OF THEM BUT THE THREAT OF TERRORISTS GETTING
THEIR HANDS ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS WHICH IS A VERY REAL THREAT
I MEAN IT IS SOMETHING ALCADA SEEKS FOR EXAMPLE
WHAT WE SEE IN COUNTRIES LIKE IRAN AND NORTH KOREA
IN TERMS OF CAPABILITIES THAT THEY ARE DEVELOPING
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE IT REQUIRES THE UNITED STATES
THE UNITED STATES THE WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT TO BE
ENGAGED AROUND THE WORLD.
AND WHAT I WORRY ABOUT QUIT FRANKLY IS
WHAT I WOULD CALL A GARRISON MENTALITY
THAT WE RECEIVE GLOBALLY AND JUST COME HOME
GET BEHIND THE WALLS OF OUR BOARDERS, IF YOU WILL
AND I JUST THINK MY OWN VIEW OF THAT IS THAT
PUTS US ON A TRACK THAT ACTUALLY POTENTIALLY GENERATES
MORE CRISES AS OPPOSED TO SOLVES THEM.
WE'RE WORKING HARD RIGHT NOW
I'VE GOT SOME SEVENTY TO EIGHTY PERCENT OF MY RESOURCES
DEVOTED TO THE CENTRAL COMMAND A.O.R.
IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, AND THAT PART OF THE WORLD
IT IS THE MOST UNSTABLE PART OF THE WORLD
I THINK FOR OBVIOUS REASONS
THE MIDDLE EAST IT HAS BEEN A FOCUS AREA OF MINE SINCE
I'VE TAKEN OVER AS CHAIRMAN AND ACTUALLY BEFORE THAT.
AND SEEKING STABILITY THERE IS REALLY KEY
AND HOW DO WE DO THAT AND HOW DO WE DO IT WITH WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW
I WORRY ABOUT NOT BEING ENGAGED IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD
NOT JUST ON BASES BUT IN WHAT I CALL ROUTINE DEPLOYMENTS.
IN PLACES WHERE WE ARE INVITED TO BE ENGAGED TO HAVE RELATIONSHIPS
THAT ACTUALLY THROUGH THE STRENGTH OF THOSE RELATIONSHIPS
WOULD PRECLUDE CONFLICT BREAKING OUT.
I COME FROM A POSITION
IS MORE WE RECEIVE THE MORE LIKELY
SOMETHING REALLY BAD IS GOING TO HAPPEN.
WE NEED TO STAY GLOBALLY ENGAGED AND ACTUALLY
THERE IS AN EXPECTATION IN REGIONS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD
THAT WE WILL DO THAT AND
I DON'T JUST MEAN MILITARILY SPECIFICALLY
AND WE HAVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH
COUNTRIES THAT ARE LONG LASTING
THAT ARE UNDERPINNED IN THE MILITARY
TO MILITARY RELATIONSHIP BUT THAT IS NOT.
THAT IS NOT THE MAIN FOCUS OF THE
RELATIONSHIP AND IN FACT IN MANY CASES
ROBUST RELATIONSHIPS DEVELOP FROM HAVING A MILITARY TO MILITARY RELATIONSHIP
SPECIFICALLY THAT ALLOWED
BROADER RELATIONSHIPS TO DEVELOP.
THANKS VERY MUCH.
YES I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU ADMIRAL
FOR APPEARING HERE TODAY.
MY QUESTION SPEAKS TO AN EARLIER QUESTION SOME WHAT
AS YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR SPEECH WE FACE
A NEW KIND OF WAR AGAINST NON STATE ACTORS SUCH AS ALCIDA.
IN THIS WORLD, WHAT IF ANY ROLE DOES OUR CURRENT
SIZE OF OUR NUCLEAR ARSENAL HAVE
AND SHOULD THERE BE ANY CHANGES TO THE SIZE OR OPERATIONAL STATUS OF OUR NUCLEAR ARSENAL?
WELL I'M HEAVILY INVOLVED RIGHT NOW, I MEAN LITERALLY PERSONALLY HEAVILY INVOLVED.
IN THE NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE FOUL ON START
TREATY THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS TREATY
BETWEEN US AND RUSSIA WHICH EXPIRED
ON THE FIFTH OF DECEMBER
AND WE LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE RUSSIA HAS
AN EXTRAORDINARY NUMBER OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
AND THE RESULTS OF THAT NEGOTIATION NOT
DONE YET BUT CERTAINLY THE HOPE IS
THAT THERE'S A FAIRLY SUBSTANTIAL
REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
AND THAT ALIGNS VERY CLEARLY WITH
WHERE PRESIDENT OBAMA WANTS TO GO
WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET THERE OVER NIGHT.
IN AN ADDITION TO THE STATEGIC WEAPONS WHICH
IS WHAT THIS NEGOTIATION IS ABOUT
RUSSIE HAS THOUSANDS OF
TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS
WHICH IS, THEIR NOT ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW SO THE CHALLENGE IS HOW DO YOU GET TO A POINT.
WHERE YOU GET TO SOMETHING LIKE ZERO
WHICH IS WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS OUT THERE
GIVEN THE THOUSANDS THAT ARE THERE AND
ACTUALLY ALSO GIVEN THE POTENTIAL
SO THE TREATY THAT WE'VE GOT HAS TO BE WORKED
TOGETHER IT'S BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL
HISTORICALLY AND I THINK THE ONE THAT WILL
FOLLOW HOPEFULLY IN THE NEXT WEEKS
WILL ALSO BOTH REDUCE WEAPONS
BUT RECOGNIZE BOTH COUNTRIES
STILL HAVE THEM AND QUIT FRANKLY BOTH COUNTRIES
STILL HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO WIPE EACH OTHER OUT.
CHINA HAS DEVELOPED NUCLEAR WEAPON.S
INDIA HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
PAKISTAN HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS SO THE TOTALITY OF THE CHALLENGE I DON'T THINK CAN BE
HANDLED I DON'T THINK CAN JUST
BE ANSWERED WITH ONE, A SINGLE APPROACH.
IT'S AN ENORMOUSLY COMPLEX ISSUE AND
THAT'S THE REALITY OF WHERE WE ARE.
THE PRAGMATIC SIDE OF WHERE WE ARE
IN TERMS OF TRYING TO ACHEIVE LONG TERM
A POINT WHERE THEY DON'T EXSIST ANYMORE.
THANK YOU.
AFTERNOON SIR, LIEUTENANT ANDRE MARSHALL
FROM FIRST BRIGADE FIRST ENTRY DIVISION.
KIND OF CARRYING ON WITH THE FOCUS OF NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION
AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE BUT
IN RELATION TO NON NUCLEAR
PLAYERS BECOMING NUCLEAR STATES
DO YOU SEE, AND IF SO, HOW THAT WILL BE A MAJOR EMPHASIS IN MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE ACROSS THE BOARD?
THERE'S A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF EMPHASIS ON KOREA
TO NOT BECOME A NUCLEAR STATE
IF YOU WILL, TO FOCUS HEAVILY OBVIOUSLY ON IRAN
WHO CONTINUES FROM MY POINT OF VIEW
TO SEEK NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND I THINK
IRAN ACHEIVING IN NUCLEAR WEAPONS
IS INCREDIBLY DESTABILIZING IN THE REGION VERY MUCH
POTENTIALLY TRIGGERS OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE REGION.
TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR WEAPONS THEMSELVES LITERALLY
IN RESPONCE AND I TALKED EARLIER ABOUT HOW
UNSTABLE THAT PART OF THE WORLD
IS AND WE JUST DON'T NEED MORE
INSTABLILITY WHAT WE NEED FROM IRAN IN MY VIEW IS RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP
AND THAT HAS CERTAINLY NOT BEEN EVIDENT
IN AN AWFUL LOT OF THE PUBLIC RHEDORIC
THAT I'VE SEEN AND THERE'S AN ASPECT CERTAINLY
WITH THOSE TWO COUNTRIES IN PARTICULAR
NORTH KOREA AND IRAN WHICH
IS TIED TO PROLIFERATION
AND THE WORRY THAT NOT ONLY WOULD THEY HAVE
THE WEAPONS THEY'D HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY
AND IN FACT COULD SPREAD THE TECHNOLOGY
AND MEET THE NEED IN THE REQUEST
OF THE TERRORISTS FOR EXAMPLE. SO WE'RE
WORKING HARD ON NON PROLIFERATION
WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO THAT
ITS NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES.
COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD ARE WORKING ON THIS TO PUT
IN REGIMES WHICH ARE VERY TOUGH IN THAT REGARD
BUT ITS BY NO MEANS A PERFECT SYSTEM.
AND THE TECHNOLOGY POTENTIALLY STILL CAN SPREAD.
SO DEALING WITH THAT IS ALL
PART OF THE SAME ISSUE
TO MAKE SURE THAT NOT ONLY DO MORE
COUNTRIES ACHEIVE THAT CAPABILITY
BUT ALSO ELIMINATE AS BEST WE CAN THE
PROLIFERATION OF THESE KINDS OF WEAPONS.
THANK YOU SIR.
THANK YOU ADMIRAL, QUESTION ABOUT THE TRAINING
AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PEOPLE IN THE MILITARY.
TIE INTO ONE OF YOUR PRINCIPLES ABOUT APPLYING
FORCE IN A PRINCIPLE AND PRECISE MANNER
WITH INCREASING TECHNOLOGY ON THE BATTLEFIELD AND IS THERE A BIG PUSH WITHIN THE MILITARY
TO MAKE SURE ALL THE WAR FIGHTERS HAVE THE
TRAINING AND THE KNOWLEDGE SO THEY CAN
APPLY THE FORCE IN A PRINCIPLED WAY?
I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE A HUGE CHALLENGE.
CERTAINLY WE'VE LEARNED, AGAIN, WE'VE LEARNED AN AWFUL LOT IN THESE WARS.
AND I USE, WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE, THE
SIGNITURE EXAMPLE OF WHAT GENERAL MCCHRYSTAL
AS LED SINCE HE GOT THERE LAST SUMMER
WHICH IS TO SEAK TO ELIMINATE ANY CIVILIAN CASUALTIES.
AND REALLY FOCUS ON THE PEOPLE
AND NOT FOCUS ON THE ENEMY.
AND IT ACTUALLY GOES TO THE LARGER
QUESTION FOR ME OF THE TERRORISTS.
WHAT IS AT THE ROUTE CAUSE OF TERRORISM AND HOW DO WE GET TO
A WORLD AND IN COUNTRIES THROUGHOUT THE
WORLD WHERE FIFTEEN, SIXTEEN, SEVENTEEN,
YEAR OLDS ARE MAKING DECISIONS THAT ARE
POSSITIVE DECISIONS ABOUT THEIR LIFE NOT NEGATIVE.
THEY SEE A WAY AHEAD WHICH DOESN'T
INCLUDE KILLING THEMSELVES
AND KILLING A LOT OF INNOCENT
PEOPLE ALONG WITH THEM.
AND WE'RE A LONG WAY OFF FROM
THAT JUST BASED ON WHERE WE ARE.
SO I THINK THE EXAMPLE THAT MCCHRYSTAL
HAS LAID IN OUT THERE IS SIGNIFICANT
AND I'VE TALKED TO TROOPS ON THE GROND
IN AFGHANISTAN THAT HAVE FOUGHT IN IRAQ
AND THEY HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT SOME OF WHAT
THEY'VE BEEN ASKED TO DO IN TERMS OF RULES IN ENGAGEMENT.
BECAUSE IT WASN'T THAT WAY EARLY IN IRAQ AND IT COULD MAKE THEM, AND IN SOME CASES HAD MADE
THEY BELIEVE THEY HAVE BEEN...
THEY HAVE BECOME MORE VULNERABLE.
WHEN PRESIDENT OBAMA ROLLED OUT THE
STRATEGY FOR AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN
THE FOLLOWING, A COUPLE DAYS AFTER
THAT I WENT DOWN TO CAMP LEJEUNE
TO TALK TO ABOUT A THOUSAND MARINES AND I WENT TO
FORT CAMPBELL KENTUCKY TO TALK TO ABOUT THE SAME NUMBER OF SOLDIERS.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF WHOM ARE GOING TO AFGHANISTAN
AND I SPECIFICALLY TALKED ABOUT THIS ISSUE
BECAUSE THESE ARE INSTANTANEOUS DECISIONS THAT
ARE MADE AT VERY VERY SMALL UNIT LEVEL.
THAT...TAKE BOTH TRAINING WHICH WE ARE FOCUSED ON BECAUSE ITS
BACKED UP RIGHT NOW ALL THE WAY INTO THE TRAINING COMMANDS
BUT IT HAD NOT BEEN THE FOCUS IT HAD...
IT HAS NOT BEEN UP TILL NOW THE FOCUS THAT
IT IS AND SO WE'VE HAD TO CHANGE THAT AS WELL.
AND IN SOME CASES ITS A TOUGHER DECISION
BUT WE ARE TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON THEM.
NOW I ALSO HAVE GREAT CONFIDENCE
IN OUR YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN. THIS IS,
AS I WOULDN'T TELL YOU HOW LONG,
BUT I'VE BEEN DOING THIS A LONG TIME.
I STARTED IN VIETNAM AND THIS IS THE BEST MILITARY
IN MY CAREER. AND I'M IN MY FIFTH DECADE.
SO, IT'S GREAT BECAUSE OUR YOUNG PEOPLE
MAKE IT GREAT. SO I HAVE EVERY CONFIDENCE
THEY CAN DO THIS, IT'S JUST AN ADJUSTMENT
AND WHAT I SAID IN MY REMARKS WE CAN
TACTICALLY WIN BUT STRATEGICALLY LOOSE.
AND IF WE KEEP KILLING CIVILIANS
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BELIEVE
WE'RE THERE FOR THEIR GOOD. IT JUST,
IT WOULDN'T WORK IN YOUR HOME
AND IT DOESN'T WORK IN THEIRS.
THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON ADMIRAL SIR, I'M PETTY OFFICER FIRST CLASS NEIL STRATHMAN
AND I WONDERED IF YOU, WITH YOUR INTELLIGENCE GATHERING HAD ANY INSIDE AS TO WHAT THE FINAL SCORE
OF THE BASKETBALL GAME WOULD BE THIS EVENING.
(LAUGHTER)
ACTUALLY I DO KNOW.
(LAUGHTER & APPLAUSE)
BUT IT'S SO HIGHLY CLASSIFIED I CAN'T TELL YOU.
(LAUGHTER)
THANK YOU SIR.
THANK YOU FOR COMING ADMIRAL. I AM LIEUTENANT
COMMANDER IN THE NAVY ACTIVE DUTY AND HERE AS A STUDENT.
MY QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH THE NAVY
PSYCHIATRIST THAT A COUPLE MONTHS AGO
KILLED, I THINK IT WAS THIRTEEN INDIVIDUALS.
IT SEEMS APPARENT THAT HE WAS
MOTIVATED BY SOME RADICAL MUSLIM THOUGHT. DO YOU BELIEVE ENOUGH WAS DONE,
OR WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE DIFFERENTLY
TO TRY TO COUNTERACT THIS AND PREVENT IT SIR?
IS IT PERHAPS SYSTEMIC OF OUR ILLUMINATIVE
OF A MORE SYSTEMIC PROBLEM WE MIGHT HAVE IN THE MILITARY
WITH GAURD TO SENSATIVE ISSUES SUCH AS THIS?
THIS IS THE FORT HOOD, FORT HOOD KILLINGS...
YES SIR.
WE LEARNED A LOT FROM THAT AND ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT BECAME MORE OBVIOUS
TO US THEN WE KNEW WAS THE POTENTIAL
FOR RADICALIZATION USING THE INTERNET.
AND CLEARLY HE HAD BEEN IN CONTACT WITH
A VERY ELOQUENT, A VERY RADICAL AMON YEMEN
WHO ACTUALLY WAS HAD SPENT A LOT OF
TIME IN THE UNITED STATES.
AND IT IS, IT IS IN SOME WAYS
THE NEXT PHASE, IF YOU WILL
OF RADICALIZATION. AND THE SAME WAS TRUE
AS WE FOUND OUT MORE AND MORE ABOUT
THE INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS ON THE PLANE
IN DETROIT ON THE 25 OF DECEMBER.
SO IT'S, FOR ALL OF US, NOT JUST THE MILITARY,
BUT FOR ALL OF US WE NEED
TO BE PAYING A LOT MORE ATTENTION TO THAT.
I SAID VERY EARLY IN THE DISSCUSION ABOUT THIS
WHEN I WAS ASKED QUESTIONS AND
THERE ARE MILITARY LEADERS HERE,
I HOLD MILITARY LEADERS RESPONSIBLE FOR KNOWING
WHO'S IN THEIR UNIT AND KNOWING WHAT THEY'RE UP TO.
AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYBODY MORE
CAPABLE AND PREPARED FOR DOING THAT
THEN THE LEADERS THAT WE HAVE ACROSS THE MILITARY.
AND I HAVE VERY HIGH EXPECTATIONS FOR THAT.
HAD IT BEFORE THIS INCIDENT,
CONTINUE TO HAVE IT.
AND IN RETROSPECT THERE CLEARLY WERE SOME SIGNS
THAT COULD HAVE BEEN PICKED UP.
THE SPECIFICS OF BOTH THE REVIEW AND THE
DETERMINATION OF OUTCOMES WITH RESPECT TO
THAT ARE... WE'RE NOT...WE HAVEN'T COMPLETED THAT
SO I WOULDN'T TALK TO ANY MORE DETAILS
ON THAT. AND I'M REALLY SPEAKING TO THE
PART OF THE REPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN
MADE PUBLIC THAT ADMIRAL CLARK AND
FORMER SECRETARY OF THE ARMY TOGO WEST
THAT REPORTED OUT ON THE STUDY,
THE REVIEW THEY DID.
BUT I'M ALSO MINDFUL, ... MY EXPECTATIONS FOR LEADERS
THAT IT ISN'T JUST ABOUT RADICALIZATION
IT IS ABOUT THE TOTALITY OF
BEHAVIOR OF OUR PEOPLE.
WE ARE EXPERIENCING RIGHT NOW,
IN ALL OUR MILITARY, RECORD SUICIDES.
AND WE'RE WORKING DAY AND NIGHT TO
TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO FIX THAT.
BUT THE NUMBERS ACTUALLY CONTINUE.
I'M VERY HARD PRESSED AND THEY ARE
DRAMATICALLY INCREASED SINCE THESE WARS STARTED.
AND I'M JUST HARD PRESSED TO BELIEVE THAT THE WARS DON'T HAVE
AN AWFUL LOT TO DO WITH IT EVEN THOUGH THAT
HASN'T BEEN PROVEN SCIENTIFICALLY YET.
BUT THE ONLY, I THINK THE BEST WAY TO GET IT THIS IS THROUGH LEADERSHIP AND THE INDIVIDUALS
WHO ARE GOING TO SEE THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE
THOSE WHO ARE CLOSEST TO THEM IN THE WORKPLACE AND ALSO
IN THE HOME. AND THAT WE NEED TO HAVE
OUR ANTENNA UP FOR THOSE SIGNALS AS LEADERS.
SO IT ISN'T JUST ABOUT THE RADICALIZATION PIECE,
OF WHICH I SPOKE, IT'S ABOUT
BEHAVIOR IN GENERAL AND THE PRESSURES
THAT SO MANY OF OUR YOUNG PEOPLE ARE UNDER.
AND CAN, AND WE MUST AS LEADERS INTERVENE.
OR TOO OFTEN AND SO TRAGICALLY AND SADLY THE SELF
INTERVENTION RESULTS IN THE SUICIDE RATE WE'VE GOT RIGHT NOW.
SO I THINK ALL OF US, MYSELF, YOU, ANYBODY IN A
LEADERSHIP POSITION WE'VE GOT A LOT OF WORK TO DO.
AND IN WAYS THAT ACTUALLY IS,
THEIR CORE LEADERSHIP PRINCIPLES.
THAT WE ALL UNDERSTAND AND TAKING
CARE OF OUR PEOPLE, KNOWING WHO THEY ARE
KNOWING A LOT ABOUT THEM WHAT THEIR
HOPES AND DREAM ARE, HOW THEIR DOING.
AND AN AWFUL LOT OF THE SUICIDES
ARE BEST WE CAN TELL TIED TO FINANCIAL
DIFFICULTIES OR RELATIONSHIP DIFFICULTIES
AND WE GOTTA GET AHEAD OF IT.
RIGHT NOW WE'RE NOT. WE'RE SPENDING
A LOT OF TIME DOING IT BUT WE'RE NOT YET.
THANK YOUR SIR.
THANK YOU SIR FOR YOUR ENLIGHTENING LECTURE.
I WANT TO ASK YOU A QUESTION RELATED
TO AFRICA, WHERE I COME FROM. I'M SABRA NABRON FROM KENYA.
P.H.D. STUDENT IN SECONDARY STUDIES.
I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW FROM YOUR OPINION DO YOU
THINK SUMALI IS BECOMING THE NEXT TOUGH GUNS TOWN?
DO YOU THINK THERE IS A MILITARY SOLUTION TO GETTING
WITH OR ASSERTING A FUNCTION IN GOVERNMENT IN SUMALI?
AND WHAT ROLE CAN THE U.S. PLAY THAT? AND
THE LAST ONE IS HAVE THE U.S. FOUND
A COUNTRY IN AFRICA THAT IS
WILLING TO HOST THE AFRICOMS?
I'M SORRY IS WHAT?
HAVE THE U.S. FOUND A COUNTRY IN AFRICA
THAT IS WILLING TO HOST THE AFRICOMS?
I HAVE BEEN CONCERNED FOR THE LAST COUPLE
OF YEARS AND HAVE SPOKEN VERY PUBLICLY
ABOUT TWO COUNTRIES POTENTIALLY BECOMING SAFE HAVENS FOR TERRORISM, ALCADA SPECIFICALLY.
ONE OF WHICH IS YAMON
AND THE OTHER IS SAMALA.
THERE'S NOT A MILITARY SOLUTION HERE. THERE MOST LIKELY
IS A MILITARY, CERTAINLY A SECURITY ASPECT
TO THIS AND I DON'T MEAN PROVIDED BY
THE UNITED STATES. BUT CLEARLY THAT'S KEY
AND WE ARE, WE WORK HARD TO SUPPORT THE
GOVERNMENT IN SAMALA, AS QUIT FRANKLY DOES YOUR COUNTRY.
BUT IT'S THE SAME KIND OF MIX, IF YOU WILL,
THAT WHERE THERE HAS BEEN A WEAK GOVERNMENT
IT'S WHAT I CALL...THE TERRORIST GO TO NON...
TO UNGOVERNED SPACES OR WEAKLY GOVERNED SPACES
THAT'S WHERE THEY LIVE AND THEY
DOMINATE AND THEY DOMINATE THE PEOPLE.
AND WE'VE GOT TO ADDRESS IT
FROM THAT POINT OF VIEW.
AND AS FAR AS A HOME FOR AFRICOM WHICH IS
THE FOUR STAR COMMAND THAT HAS RESPONSIBILITY
FROM THE UNITED STATES PERSPECTIVE MILITARILY
HAS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONTINENT OF AFRICA.
WE STOOD THIS UP ABOUT A YEAR AGO
LAST OCTOBER AND WE DID IT BECAUSE WE
...AFRICA IS A CRITICAL CONTINENT
WITH LOTS OF CHALLENGES.
AND HAVING THAT KIND OF LEADERSHIP
ENGAGEMENT AND FOCUS, DOES WHAT I TALKED ABOUT EARLIER
WHICH IS ENGAGES THE LEADERSHIP,
ENGAGES THE MILITARIES
SO THAT WE HAE LONG TERM RELATIONSHIPS
AND WE REALLY DEVELOP TRUST
BETWEEN THE COUNTRIES. AND IF WE HAVE
NO ONE THERE AND NO ONE DOING IT
IT'S HARD TO BUILD UP THAT TRUST. AND THAT
HEADQUARTERS IS STATIONED IN STUTTGARD, GERMANY
AND I'M ACTUALLY VERY COMFORTABLE WITH
WHERE ITS STATIONED RIGHT NOW.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SIR FOR COMING TO ADDRESS US TODAY. YOU MENTIONED
THAT NUCLEAR NON PROLIFERATION IS AN IMPORTANT GOAL.
ESPECAILLY BY CERTAIN STATES LIKE
IRAN AND KOREA THAT HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO
MENUS OUR INTERESTS AND ALLIES ABROAD. IN THE EVENT
THAT SANCTIONS ARE NOT ENOUGH TO DETER
THE ACQUISITION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS, TO WHAT EXTENT
ARE OUR MILITARY INTERVENTIONS A POSSIBILITY?
WITH IRAN OR WITH NORTH KOREA OR BOTH?
BOTH.
HOW DID I KNOW YOU WERE GOING TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION THAT WAY.
WITH IRAN SPECIFICALLY, THERE IS AN AWFUL
LOT OF WORK GOING ON WITH RESPECT TO
BOTH DIALOGUE AND DIPLOMACY TO ENGAGE
THEM TO SEE IF THEY WILL GIVE UP,
ESSENTIALLY GIVE THIS GOAL UP.
THEY CERTAINLY HAVEN'T THUS FAR.
THERE'S A LOT OF WORKING GOING ON RIGHT NOW WITH
RESPECT TO SANCTIONS AND AN ADDITIONAL UNITED NATIONS
SANCTIONS REGEAM. WE ARE WORKING VERY HARD
TO MAKE IT A VERY VERY STRINGENT SET OF SANCTIONS.
AND I THINK AS THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID,
SECRETARY OF STATE SECRETARY GATES AND MYSELF
HAVE SAID THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT
ALL OPTIONS AREN'T OUT THERE.
CONTINGENCY OPTIONS BUT CERTAINLY THAT
IS NOT THE PREFERED PATH AT THIS POINT.
IT'S A VERY NARROW SPACE BETWEEN IRAN GETTING
A NUCLEAR WEAPON AND SOMEONE WHO MIGHT STRIKE
IRAN AND BOTH OF THOSE OUTCOMES I THINK GENERATE AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF INSTABILITY
IN A PART OF THE WORLD THAT'S
ALREADY PRETTY UNSTABLE.
SO I WORRY ABOUT NOT JUST THE ACTIONS IN IT OF
THEMSELVES BUT ALSO THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF
THOSE ACTS WHICH ARE VERY HARD TO PREDICT.
I JUST MADE A TRIP I WAS IN
FIVE COUNTRIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST A COUPLE WEEKS AGO,
AND THERE ARE EXTRAORDINARY AND
INCREASING CONCERNS ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS CAPABILITY FOR IRAN AND WHAT
THE POTENTIAL OUTCOMES COULD BE. SO AN AWFUL AMOUNT OF PEOPLE WORKING IT HARD
AND THE SAME IS TRUEIN NORTH KOREA, IN TERMS
OF DESTABALIZING A PART OF THE WORLD THAT IS
VITAL ECONOMICALLY, VITAL TO OUR FRIENDS,
VITAL TO THE COUNTRIES WE HAVE ALLIANCES WITH.
AND THAT POTENTIALLY COULD BE
VERY DESTABLIZING AS WELL.
SO THERE IS AN AWFUL LOT, AGIAN IT'S
NOT THE UNITED STATES, THIS IS A LOT OF
COUNTRIES THAT ARE FOCUSED ON. NORTH KOREA
ENSURING THAT THEY WOULD NEVER
GET TO A POINT WHERE THEY WOULD HAVE
THE CAPABILITY TO USE A NUCLEAR WEAPON.
THANK YOU ADMIRAL.
WELL WE REALLY APPRECIATE THAT ADMIRAL MULLEN
COMING AND SPEAKING WITH US TODAY.
BACKSTAGE HE DID SLIP ME AN ENVELOPE THAT
SAID WE ARE GOING TO WIN BY FIVE TONIGHT.
(LAUGHING)
BUT WE DO HAVE A SWEATSHIRT HERE TO PRESENT,
SOMETHING FOR THOSE COLD WASHINGTON... IT SAYS KSTATE WILDCATS... THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
(APPLAUSE)
>