[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 110-100]
AFRICA COMMAND
__________
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
NOVEMBER 14, 2007
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
44-633 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Tenth Congress
IKE SKELTON, Missouri, Chairman
JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina DUNCAN HUNTER, California
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii TERRY EVERETT, Alabama
SILVESTRE REYES, Texas ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON,
ADAM SMITH, Washington California
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California JEFF MILLER, Florida
RICK LARSEN, Washington JOE WILSON, South Carolina
JIM COOPER, Tennessee FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia TOM COLE, Oklahoma
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam ROB BISHOP, Utah
MARK E. UDALL, Colorado MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio
DAN BOREN, Oklahoma JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
NANCY BOYDA, Kansas PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut THELMA DRAKE, Virginia
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida
KATHY CASTOR, Florida
Erin C. Conaton, Staff Director
Mark Lewis, Professional Staff Member
Stephanie Sanok, Professional Staff Member
Margee Meckstroth, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2007
Page
Hearing:
Wednesday, November 14, 2007, Africa Command..................... 1
Appendix:
Wednesday, November 14, 2007..................................... 41
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2007
AFRICA COMMAND
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hunter, Hon. Duncan, a Representative from California, Ranking
Member, Committee on Armed Services............................ 2
Skelton, Hon. Ike, a Representative from Missouri, Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services.................................... 1
WITNESSES
Henry, Hon. Ryan, Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy......................................................... 4
Mull, Ambassador Stephen D., Acting Assistant Secretary of State,
Bureau of Political-Military Affairs........................... 6
Ward, Gen. William E. ``Kip,'' USA, Commander, U.S. Africa
Command........................................................ 8
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Henry, Hon. Ryan............................................. 45
Mull, Ambassador Stephen D................................... 52
Ward, Gen. William E. ``Kip''................................ 61
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
[There were no Questions submitted post hearing.]
AFRICA COMMAND
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, November 14, 2007.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in room
2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ike Skelton (chairman
of the committee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. IKE SKELTON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
MISSOURI, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
The Chairman. Thank you very much for bearing with us. And,
ladies and gentlemen, we welcome you to the Armed Services
hearing on the United States African Command (AFRICOM).
We have appearing before us the Honorable Ryan Henry,
Principal Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; Ambassador
Stephen Mull, Acting Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of
Political-Military Affairs; and General Kip Ward, the
Commanding General of Africa Command.
And, General, we welcome you and thank you for being with
us today.
This is a reminder today that there are places in the world
well beyond Iraq and Afghanistan that we must be concerned
with, and this is a new thought, a new venture, and we in our
country need to pay a great deal of attention to it.
When you stop and think about it, Africa represents a range
of real and potential national security-related concerns and
deserves great consideration by us.
First, of course, is that Africa is a theater in the war on
terror. We remember the attacks on the American embassies in
Tanzania and Kenya in 1998.
And today Operation Enduring Freedom-Trans Sahara (OEF-TS)
is ongoing as we speak, with American forces working with their
African counterparts in places like Algeria, Chad, Mali,
Morocco, Nigeria and Tunisia to strengthen the region's
counterterrorism efforts--one or more of those nations and
large portions of territory where no state government really
exists and terrorists can find safe haven, sadly, in those
ungoverned places.
So we do welcome you gentlemen. We look forward to your
testimony. I will ask that the balance of my prepared statement
be put in the record without objection.
And I will ask our esteemed ranking member for his comments
at this time.
Mr. Hunter.
STATEMENT OF HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
holding this hearing.
And welcome to General Kip Ward, who appears before this
committee for the first time as the commander of the new United
States Africa Command.
And, General, we value your continued commitment and
services. We recognize the growing importance of stability on
the African continent and its significant impact on the
international security environment and especially the global
war on terror.
We also welcome the Honorable Ryan Henry and Ambassador
Stephen Mull, who will certainly provide insight into both the
creation of AFRICOM and its future as a model of interagency
cooperation.
Ever since the Department of Defense (DOD) released its
latest Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) in February of 2006, we
in Congress have been watching to see how the Department would
translate its multitude of findings and recommendations into
some concrete steps that will help the young men and women of
our U.S. military meet the challenges of a changed and still-
evolving security environment.
Earlier this year, President Bush announced his decision to
create AFRICOM as one such step. At the time, he noted that
``this new command will strengthen our security cooperation
with Africa and create new opportunities to bolster the
capabilities of our partners in Africa. Africa Command will
enhance our efforts to bring peace and security to the people
of Africa.''
Over the last several decades alone, we can all recall the
horrifying genocides, rebellions and civil wars and the natural
disasters that have occurred on the African continent.
These events, which raised death tolls to unimaginable
levels and caused massive influxes of refugees and internally
displaced people, serve as a grim reminder of what we all stand
to lose in the face of massive instability.
We see this reminder still in the current situation within
the Darfur region of Sudan and in the continued saber-rattling
within several other Africa subregions.
So I agree with the President's goals as he laid out
earlier this year--development, health, education, democracy
and economic growth.
The question becomes, though, how a United States combatant
command can best work toward these goals which, to be honest,
may contribute to national security but are not viewed as
traditional military goals.
My questions are therefore twofold. First, many media
outlets and regional experts report that Africa officials have
expressed significant misgivings that the establishment of
Africa Command will lead to the militarization of our relations
with their nations.
In light of the number of coups and armed conflicts that
have occurred in Africa since many of those nations gained
independence, I imagine that those officials are justifiably
wary of anything with even a hint of militarization.
In addition, in a briefing I recently received, I learned
that the U.S. Government spends about $9 billion per year in
Africa on health, development, trade promotion and good
governance activities.
Yet we spend only $250 million annually on building
capabilities and capacities for peacekeeping, border and
coastal security, and logistics and airlift support for
peacekeeping, as well as holding training exercises and
bilateral events.
Mr. Henry, you also highlighted this disparity in your
written testimony.
Given their possible distrust of foreign military influence
and given this disparity in the focus of U.S. aid, how are we
reassuring our African friends that this new command will not
lead to increased U.S. efforts to control or otherwise
influence their militaries?
And how have you responded to their concerns as expressed
to date? And what is your plan for continued engagement on such
future concerns?
My second question focuses on the interagency aspect of
this new command. I understand that AFRICOM is attempting to
establish a complementary mix of military and civilian
personnel with officials from the State Department and the
United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
working side by side with Defense Department officials.
However, I have also heard rumblings that U.S. embassy
personnel in African capitals and elsewhere may be suspicious
of an overarching regional construct, particularly one that is
essentially a military combatant command.
The best way I think of to ensure that a player is fully
invested in a successful team-oriented outcome is to make
certain that player is literally invested.
Given that a significant number of AFRICOM personnel will
be State Department and USAID officials, please describe the
cost-sharing arrangement for Fiscal Year 2008 and in future
fiscal years so that we can rest assured non-DOD players are
full stakeholders in the success of this command and its
interagency missions.
And particularly, gentlemen, I have always been concerned
with the standup of military operations which end up being
viewed as a money payer by the other agencies, and I hope that
we will see burden-sharing in this, what really has to be
considered to be a joint venture in Africa.
In closing, we have seen how ungoverned and undergoverned
spaces can become safe havens for terrorists. By partnering
more closely with nations on the African continent, we can help
to develop more secure borders, more responsible and capable
military forces and security institutions that are more
responsive to national governments, and we can help to close
the doors of any safe havens located there.
I look forward to hearing how standing up AFRICOM will
expand upon those efforts.
And once again, General, as we discussed a little earlier,
General Ward, I think that one of the real values of the
combatant commands around the world and the military presence
is the development of those relationships between military
leaders in those countries and American military leaders.
And to a large degree, I have seen our military leaders as
being really, truly our best ambassadors, our best diplomats.
And I would think that establishing working relationships with
the military leaders of the African states will accrue to our
benefit in the future.
And it is an area that we should prioritize in terms of
developing relationships, having lots of visits to American
training commands, and trying to build long-term, stable
relationships that will pay off 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, 20
years from now.
So thank you, gentlemen. Thanks for being with us this
morning.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this very important
hearing.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
I have invited Don Payne, the subcommittee chairman on
Africa from the Foreign Affairs Committee, to join us, and
without objection he will be with us today.
And with that said, Secretary Henry, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. RYAN HENRY, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE FOR POLICY
Secretary Henry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are genuinely
appreciative of the opportunity to come and talk to you today.
We have found that dialogue and discussion not only helps
inform people of where we are trying to go with the command but
also enriches our efforts in standing up this new command with
a new construct. So we genuinely look forward to it.
The fact that Africa is rising in significance to the
United States is undeniable. The reorganization of our military
structure within the Department of Defense to accommodate a
continental unified command is just a manifestation of that
growing importance.
In my submitted statement, I outlined the rationale,
structure and objectives for guiding the creation of AFRICOM
and addressed some of the ranking member's second question.
Hopefully, in my oral statement, I will address some of your
first question.
Because over the course of hundreds of consultations
regarding AFRICOM, we as a group have learned that the vast
majority that we talk to have initial reservations about the
new command, and especially those on the African continent, and
that these misgivings are fed by misperceptions and
recirculated myths.
These misunderstandings--they tend to cloud the dialogue
until they are adequately addressed, and therefore I would like
to use the brief period I have for my oral statement to address
these misunderstandings and thereby afford General Ward and
Ambassador Mull the opportunity to address the proactive
aspects of AFRICOM in their statements.
First myth: Many Africans and even some of their leaders
suspect that we are establishing AFRICOM to further some
specific Department of Defense agenda on the continent. And it
usually comes down to three variants of that.
Either we are there solely to fight terrorism and thereby
will make the continent a bigger target for terrorist activity,
or we are there to counter growing Chinese influence and
thereby we are going to polarize the continent between two
superpowers, or even we are there to secure Africa's mineral
wealth--usually it is specifically oil they think that we are
after--and thereby exploit the continent in a neo-colonial
fashion.
These myths just are not true. Violent extremism and the
safe havens afforded to them by ungoverned, misgoverned and
undergoverned areas is a concern which we will address in
cooperation with our African partners in a manner similar to
the way we do today, each and every day, but it is not the
singular focus of the command.
The United States, China and other countries share a common
interest in a stable, secure and rising Africa. And though we
may differ on the means, we look forward to cooperating with
China as a responsible international stakeholder to achieve
that end.
Additionally, while natural resources represent much of
Africa's current and future material wealth, it is in a stable
environment where Africans have unimpeded access for bringing
their goods to the world marketplace that will deliver the most
benefit to Africans and, I might add, non-Africans.
The second set of myths swirl around the claim that AFRICOM
is a manifestation of a militarization of foreign policy, the
Pentagon's effort to make inroads in the area of foreign
policy. This is also false.
AFRICOM will not change the State Department's role as the
lead in foreign policy.
Each of our ambassador's authorities as the chief of
mission in any country will not just be respected but will be
reinforced by AFRICOM's cooperative and integrated whole
government approach to security issues under the country team
leadership of the ambassador.
And I think it is notable with Ambassador Mull being here
today--and in each and every meeting or deliberation that we
have had regarding AFRICOM, there has been a representative of
the State Department there.
The third generic myth is that some accuse AFRICOM of being
a unilateral mechanism for seizing control of security issues
on the continent. Again, this is not why we need an AFRICOM.
Africans will continue to lead efforts to address their own
security challenges. The Department of Defense recognizes and
applauds the leadership role that Africans both on a regional
and individual basis and also the African Union are taking to
promote security and stability.
We seek to complement these efforts in a supporting role,
not to compete with them in a leadership role. Through many of
our capacity-building programs, we seek to support, not
supplant, African leadership.
U.S. national security is enhanced most on the continent
when African nations and organizations can address and resolve
emerging security issues before they erupt into regional and
international crises that will require, then, international
intervention.
Finally, despite such misrepresentations, AFRICOM was not
developed in a vacuum. Our outreach campaign was comprised of
hundreds of separate engagements with African nations both on
the continent and here in Washington, D.C., with Congress,
nongovernmental organizations, the media, multilateral
institutions and numerous foreign governments in Europe and
Asia.
Constant and continuing dialogue with our African partners
has genuinely influenced the development of the command. I have
personally been to the continent twice to consult with the key
leaders of 14 different nations.
And despite some public accounts to the contrary, almost
all the African nations expressed their appreciation for the
greater U.S. engagement in Africa and their support for our
desire to work with the African Union (AU).
Overwhelmingly, once people are educated about the command,
their fears subside and their interests are heightened.
Of course, no matter the extent of our outreach efforts,
rumors will persist, and the key to dispelling rumors, in
addition to speaking with you here today, is to stand up
AFRICOM and demonstrate that these fears have no foundation.
We are thrilled to have General Ward in command of AFRICOM
and believe his efforts to execute defense policies on the
continent will be successful and continue to be received
favorably by Africans. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Henry can be found in
the Appendix on page 45.]
The Chairman. Thanks so much, Mr. Secretary.
Ambassador Mull.
STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR STEPHEN D. MULL, ACTING ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF STATE, BUREAU OF POLITICAL-MILITARY AFFAIRS
Ambassador Mull. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Hunter. It is a great delight to appear before the House
Armed Services Committee again today to talk about AFRICOM.
Africa today is a place of promise and opportunity linked
to the United States through culture, history and commerce. But
it is also a place of severe challenges such as poverty,
disease, terrorism and instability that all together pose
critical risks for U.S. interests.
From the very first conversation between the Departments of
State and Defense on the idea of AFRICOM more than a year ago,
we at State have enthusiastically welcomed the idea of a
unified command for Africa which would feature a number of
exciting innovations, including the transformation of the U.S.
military strategic approach to the continent from three
separate commands into one; expanded attention to building the
military capacity of our African partners so that they can
better work together with us in confronting the common threats
we face such as terrorism, ungoverned areas, and civil and
international conflicts, as the chairman mentioned; but also
feature a more coherent approach to important regional security
concerns that affect America's vital interests.
It would provide a more efficient way of giving emergency
humanitarian assistance and managing the response to military
crises.
And it would provide an unprecedented new way of
interagency cooperation that would feature opening the door to
substantial civilian agency involvement in the command,
including by putting senior civilians in leadership positions
in the command.
Our enthusiasm for the idea only increased with the
appointment of General Kip Ward, whose strong leadership skills
and warm personal relationships across the continent will only
augur well for the command's success.
From the very beginning of planning for AFRICOM, State was
an integral partner. We assigned officers to join the command
design team here in Washington and later in Stuttgart, and many
aspects of the new command reflect substantial input by State
and other civilian officials.
We collaborated in briefing your staffs here in the
Congress, appropriate nongovernmental organizations, African
governments and in briefing the press.
We joined in officially briefing key African partners on a
series of trips to the region and at a conference here in the
United States. And we joined in briefing key allies and
partners around the world on our intentions.
The result of this collaboration is a command that will
substantially improve the U.S. Government's effectiveness in
responding to Africa's unique challenges and in creating an
atmosphere that is favorable to America's considerable
interests there.
In describing AFRICOM, it is probably more important to
describe what it is not. It will not take the place of the
Department of State and of U.S. embassies in the field as the
voice of American foreign policy in our relationships with
African states and organizations.
It will not have any authorities beyond those that U.S.
military commands already enjoy.
It will not establish new military bases on the African
continent.
It will not have any less responsibility to obtain chief of
mission concurrence and coordinate all its activities in
individual countries.
Its civilian officials will not exercise any authority on
behalf of their parent agencies.
And finally, to Congressman Hunter's remarks, I believe
that will not supplant U.S. foreign assistance activities. Last
year, total U.S. foreign assistance for Africa totaled to be
about $9 billion. AFRICOM's resources will be substantially
less than that, three percent to five percent of that,
depending on how the budget turns out.
Now, conversely, here is what the command will allow.
Instead of a more traditional focus on preparing for combat,
AFRICOM will concentrate on a more strategically coherent focus
on our security cooperation and military relationships in
Africa and more effective support of important programs that we
fund with Foreign Military Financing (FMF), International
Military Education and Training (IMET), peacekeeping funds and
Section 1206 funds.
These programs include the President's Global Peacekeeping
Operations Initiative (GPOI), which aims to train tens of
thousands of new troops for peacekeeping operations; the Trans-
Sahel Counterterrorism Initiative, which aims to improve the
capacities of northern and central African states to respond to
the terrorist threat; the Maritime Security Initiative in the
Gulf of Guinea which aims to increase the ability of the
region's states to provide for their own maritime security and
other African coastal and border security programs.
It will help support the East African counterterrorism
initiative and support for peacekeeping missions in Africa such
as the United Nations (U.N.) mission in Darfur.
AFRICOM will also help support security sector reform in
such key places as Liberia and southern Sudan.
Also, importantly, it will allow civilian agencies like
State and AID to have a seat at the table in shaping the
military support of these programs, working in close liaison
with all of our embassies on the continent.
We are proud that the State Department has already
contributed Ambassador Mary Carlin Yates as one of the two
deputies to the commander and look forward to contributing a
number of other officers to assist and guide the command in its
work, such as a foreign policy adviser, Jerry Lanier, who joins
me here today.
There will obviously be substantial challenges to overcome
in standing up this command regarding the location or locations
of the command, security and infrastructure concerns, winning
political and diplomatic support for the command on the
continent, and sorting out the status of AFRICOM's forces in
the countries where they reside both with host governments and
resident U.S. embassies.
But we are confident, based on our extremely productive
interagency partnership thus far, that we are going to succeed
in overcoming those challenges and scoring a real win for
America's interests in Africa in the longer term.
Thanks very much for the opportunity to appear before you
today, and I look forward to taking your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Mull can be found in
the Appendix on page 52.]
The Chairman. Mr. Ambassador, thank you very much.
General Ward, please.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL WILLIAM E. ``KIP'' WARD, USA, COMMANDER,
U.S. AFRICA COMMAND
General Ward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Hunter,
distinguished members of the committee. I am honored to be
appearing before you in my position as the commander, United
States Africa Command.
U.S. AFRICOM was created to consolidate and focus the work
of the Department of Defense and to enable us to better support
United States policy in Africa.
I believe that U.S. AFRICOM will add value to America's
security cooperation projects and the delivery of American
security assistance programs in Africa, thus making them more
efficient and responsive.
The leadership of the African Union was positive in their
support for this objective during my visit with them just this
past week. And I might add that I discussed this with 23
separate African ambassadors to the A.U.--again, overwhelming
support for the objectives of the command.
It is in our national interest to build an enduring
organization designed to enhance our government's capacity to
help Africans care for their stability, development and
prosperity.
AFRICOM is a command under construction. We are building
the team. We would like to realize a complementary mix of
Department of Defense civilian and military staff and, as has
been noted, representatives from across the interagency
departments of our government.
With the goal of achieving full operational capability as a
unified command by October 2008, U.S. AFRICOM endeavors to be
innovative in its construct.
Our intention is to move beyond the traditional concept of
liaison officers and instead have our interagency partners
serve in staff positions alongside their Department of Defense
counterparts.
U.S. AFRICOM will complement, as the under secretary
pointed out, not compete with, the activities of other U.S.
governmental activities and organizations.
U.S. AFRICOM will, indeed, add value and, in so doing, do
no harm to the collective and substantial ongoing security
cooperation programs and other efforts on the continent.
We will do everything in our power not to disrupt or
confuse current security and stabilizing efforts in Africa. We
do need to be aware of those other activities.
We will add value by harmonizing U.S. military efforts to
maximize the effectiveness of our programs in Africa.
U.S. AFRICOM will respect the leading roles for the U.S.
Department of State in our Nation's foreign policy and U.S.
Agency for International Development in our Nation's
development and humanitarian assistance programs.
U.S. AFRICOM will seek to promote relationships and build
partnerships to enable the work of Africans in providing for
their own security. It begins with listening and understanding
our African partners' definitions of their own environment and
interest.
Appreciation of their perspective will allow us to jointly
identify ways and means that address both African and American
interests.
Our intent is to build mutual trust, respect and confidence
with our partners in Africa and our international friends
through sustained engagement by a single unified command
dedicated solely to Africa.
We will work with African nations and their security
organizations as partners.
I would like to reaffirm that AFRICOM will sustain ongoing
activities as it accepts new missions in a seamless transition
from the three existing geographic combatant commands in
Africa.
Past activities have made visible and measurable
differences on the ground, through professionalism of military
units and by showing that America is a caring and loyal
partner. These types of events and programs will continue.
They include medical readiness exercises. You are familiar
with MEDFLAG and Medical Civic Action Program (MEDCAP).
Communications interoperability enhancements through Africa
Endeavor, disaster preparedness exercises. You are familiar
with Natural Fire and Golden Spear.
Capacity-building exercises. You are familiar with
Flintlock.
Security sector reform activities such as in Liberia. And
State partnership programs where we are now up to eight in
Africa.
U.S. AFRICOM will actively support the State Department in
training African peacekeepers under the African Contingency
Operations Training and Assistance Program, or ACOTA.
New U.S. activities such as the African Partnership Station
(APS) demonstrate the types of activities that U.S. AFRICOM
will promote as forces for good in bringing stability to the
continent of Africa.
Showing our commitment to these relationships requires
enhanced and expanded resources for our African partners.
International military education and training, as was
mentioned, and foreign military financing remain important
tools for building capacity on the continent for generations to
come.
U.S. AFRICOM represents the United States Government's
long-term commitment to strengthen our security ties with
Africa.
We will endeavor to assist African nations in enhancing
security and stability for the peoples of Africa where growth
and expanded horizons exist for future generations, thus
increasing our stability here in America.
We will move forward in a very deliberate manner so that
decades from now all of us will be able to look back and see
that the foundation we laid for this new command is something
to be proud of, something that America stands to benefit from.
It is an honor to continue to serve alongside the
outstanding soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and statesmen of
the United States Africa Command. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of General Ward can be found in the
Appendix on page 61.]
The Chairman. General, thank you so much.
I have two quick questions before I ask Mr. Hunter and the
other members of the committee.
The headquarters today is in Stuttgart, Germany, am I
correct?
General Ward. Correct, sir.
The Chairman. And where will the new headquarters of the
Africa Command be, please?
General Ward. Mr. Chairman, that decision has not been
established. At the current time, there are activities taking
place on the continent to determine, based on a series of
factors, including items such as infrastructure, stability,
political receptiveness, locations, locale, the ability to move
around--those are all being looked at now.
The construct of the headquarters on the continent has not
been determined. There are models that are discussed under
deliberation with respect to a distributed headquarters where
elements of the staff might be located in various parts of the
continent.
But again, Mr. Chairman, those decisions have not been
taken and will not be taken until further deliberation and
understanding is there and in consultation with you, with the
Administration here, has taken place.
The Chairman. Do you have a judgment as to when that
decision will be made?
General Ward. Sir, at this time I do not. We are looking
closely at the various factors because we understand the
implications for the follow-on budgetary cycle, but as I
pointed out, sir, we have been cautioned to be very deliberate
in that.
We are moving apace with the work to determine the
potentials, but then the negotiations--we have to be invited to
a particular location, and so those are the efforts that are
still to be accomplished.
And as we move those efforts along, we will certainly keep
you informed. But I cannot put a timeline on it now. We do have
a goal, Mr. Chairman, that by the time we achieve full
operational capability, which is October of 2008, that some
element of the headquarters will be operating on the continent.
The Chairman. On the continent.
General Ward. Correct, sir.
The Chairman. One last question. We all know the stretch
and the strain under which the United States Army is operating
today. Where will you get your manpower for this new command?
General Ward. At the current time, sir, the manpower for
the new command is being distributed from existing activities
of the joint manning apparatus. As you are aware, currently
U.S. European Command (EUCOM), U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM),
U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) do activities on the continent.
The initial operating capability that we will continue to
work toward achieving throughout this coming series of months
will draw upon those assets as well as other assets that would
be redistributed into the command from existing combatant
command accounts.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Hunter.
Mr. Hunter. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Just very briefly, the chairman went over an important
aspect. That is the pull on personnel necessary to staff the
command.
Have you done an analysis on what the incremental increase
in DOD costs will be that will be attributed to the African
Command above and beyond what we are spending in that area now
under the existing commands?
Secretary Henry. Well, we will stand up AFRICOM within our
top line. As far as the funding goes, it will come out of
funding that is--we have the funding for the coming year, and
the funding takes--during this year, General Ward and his staff
will be laying out the program over a five-year program to
determine what that funding will be.
So we have brought that forward as an issue in our budget
build for this coming year and have reallocated dollars. The
size of the command will be on the small size of what normal
combatant commands are.
And just a minor nuance to what General Ward said. The
staffing is coming from those officers that we currently have
in joint billets, many of which will be in joint combatant
commands, but some which might be in other joint billets that
we will use to man that.
Mr. Hunter. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Ortiz, the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a question for anybody that would like to answer. I
understand that in late October 2007 members of the Pan-African
Parliament, which is the legislative body of the African Union,
voted in favor of a motion to prevail upon all African--
Americans' government request to host AFRICOM anywhere in the
African continent.
They voted that they, at this point, did not understand
exactly what we wanted to do. And I know that what we are
trying to do now is to stay ahead of the curve. We are doing
something differently than what we have done before, like after
9/11 and some of the other things now.
How much longer do you think that it will take for us to
convince this legislative body that what we are trying to do is
the right thing to do for the African nations and for the
continent?
And I don't know what you have been working on, but is this
a true fact that they voted against trying to accede to the
United States demand that we--if somebody can answer that
question.
Ambassador Mull. Yes, sir. I can tell you that as both
Secretary Henry and General Ward mentioned in their remarks,
the launch of AFRICOM when we went public with it did generate
some skepticism on the African continent.
And so that is why we have decided to approach this very
deliberately. And we find that as we consult with people
privately, the response has generally been very, very positive.
However, we want to make sure that we don't establish a
formal presence on the continent until such time that the
diplomatic climate and the political climate is right.
And fortunately, our good allies the Germans have said that
they would welcome our continuing there in Stuttgart for as
long as it takes to do that. So we have a place not too far
from the African continent where we can continue to operate.
I would note that--there has been a lot of positive
response to this initiative as well. Certainly, president
Sirleaf-Johnson of Liberia has publicly said that she welcomes
us and, in fact, would like Liberia to be the host of the
headquarters.
That is only one of many options that we are looking at.
But we will not stand up this command on the continent until we
are welcome to do so by the countries there. And we are
confident that that day will come.
Secretary Henry. I might add that both General Ward and
myself have been to the African Union on several different
occasions and talked to the top leadership, the members, the
ambassadors, and consistently they are positive in regard to
what we are trying to do.
Early on, there had been a fourth myth, one I didn't
address, that is Africa-specific, and that is that with the
coming of AFRICOM there would--be the large infusion of
American combat forces and basing on the continent.
So normally when we go to talk to them, that is the first
rumor that we knock down. There are no new bases envisioned in
AFRICOM, and there are no combat troops.
There is a staff element to which General Ward talked
about, that a portion of which will be interfacing with
Africans, we believe is important that they are on the
continent.
Once we get by that myth and the other three myths, then
people are positive. They are looking forward to Americans
participating.
Uniformly, among the African nations, they ask us to have a
close relationship with the African Union. That is who they
look to for continental security and who they would like us to
work with. And again, we have had a very cordial relationship
with them.
Mr. Ortiz. Another problem that I see--and I am all for
trying to nourish that relationship with the African countries
and the African continent.
But there was a little problem not too long ago when some
of the employees of the State Department decided that they did
not want to be assigned to Iraq because of the seriousness of
the problems and the war zone.
Do you anticipate that maybe we will have the same problem
by assigning State officials to an area that we are not sure
whether they like us or not or whether it is the proper time to
move in or not?
You don't think that will play a role in moving some of the
State Departments to an area that we don't know what we are
going to do?
Secretary Henry. Well, Ambassador Mull is the expert on
that. I will let him follow up. But to date, we have had a
surprisingly strong request for information about how
interagency personnel can participate, requests from people to
find out where they get in line to be able to sign up for it.
We haven't come up with exact billet structure, so we can't
put billets against individuals or agencies yet. But from what
we can see, that will be the least of our problems.
Ambassador Mull. I would add that since we have begun
working with the Defense Department on the standup for this
command there has been substantial interest from within the
ranks of the Africanists within the foreign service to be
assigned to participate in this command, and we have had more
expressions of interest than we, frankly, have spaces to fill.
And if I could, I know the subject of today is not Iraq. I
just would like to give you an update on Iraq in that of the
250 positions that we are filling this year, we now have
volunteers identified for 240 of them and expect to find
volunteers for the remaining 10 in the next week or so.
Mr. Ortiz. My time is up.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Bartlett.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Remembering all those years when I sat in one of the lower
rows and never had a chance to ask my question, I am going to
yield my time to the most junior member in attendance today,
which happens to be a gentleman from my birth state, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman.
The interagency reform issue is a very personal one with
us, and I am watching some really good things that have
happened in Africa.
Particularly the operations in the Horn of Africa right now
I consider one of the better-kept secrets that are there and
look with some optimism to the standup of this command and what
it could be accomplishing in the region, particularly with
long-term strategic significance for much of the world there.
One of the questions, looking at personnel issues, looking
at the challenges that we face in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia,
Somalia, going all the way back to Grenada, for that matter, in
the interagency world of working effectively together, I see a
real opportunity for us to, let's say, put a lead on a lot of
our nonkinetic assets from a least intrusive through
information outreach, diplomacy, across to economic
development, and finally having those other options as well-
placed deterrents on the table.
One of the questions that comes up from time to time as we
talk about this are barriers between the agencies, statutory
barriers in regulation, authorization, appropriation, for the
ability to intermingle funds, to collaborate, particularly when
you have a relatively short time frame to put together the kind
of package for support.
And I was wondering if you could comment for a moment and
really would open it up to all three, but perhaps begin with
Ambassador Mull, on areas in the law that we can change from an
authorizing perspective in the respective committees in
Congress to allow this command to truly be empowered, to avoid
many of the challenges that we faced on the ground in theater
right now.
Ambassador Mull. Thank you very much, Congressman Davis. As
General Ward mentioned, this is a command under construction
right now.
And in our planning, from the very beginning of the
planning process for this, when we began to sit down and
consult with our Defense colleagues last autumn, we agreed that
at least early on we would not envision any statutory changes
to how U.S. military commands operate and interoperate with
U.S. embassies in the field, that the authorities that exist
now would remain intact.
That said, we believe that creating this command will
create a lot of efficiencies by putting people from the Agency
for International Development and the State Department with
expertise in those particular authorities and areas right there
at the table with General Ward when he does his planning for
his operations of the command.
So as we stand this up and we get people staffed and
working together, that may change. We may decide that there may
need to be a change in the legal structure.
But for the time being, certainly speaking on behalf of the
State Department, we don't see any need to change the existing
authorities we have now.
Mr. Davis of Kentucky. Part of the reason I asked the
question was about 6,500 people in the foreign service, for
example, compared to seven-figure numbers in the Defense
Department of available resources--there certainly is a
difference in scale there.
In many of these areas I think we have just a fraction of
what we had in the Civil Operations and Rural Development
Support (CORDS) program in Vietnam now in terms of our actual
provincial reconstruction outreach.
And this is where I come back to the question of if you
have limited resources, the payment question could be a
challenge. I am well aware of what happened in terms of
standing up additional Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT)
support with our reinforcement that took place earlier this
year in Iraq.
The reason I am asking you first is I hear from the
military all the time that the interagency is a challenge both
from a structure, funding and authorization standpoint.
And perhaps General Ward can comment for a second on that.
General Ward. Thank you, Congressman Davis, for that. As
Ambassador Mull pointed out, as we move down the road with the
command and look at ways of being more effective in delivering
the very fine programs that the United States of America wants
to implement on the continent, there may be opportunities to
come back and ask for authorization deviations that will allow
us to do that in a more effective way.
What I will say is that in my previous role that I played
in many theaters, the ability of us to deliver timely and
effective American security cooperation and American security
assistance, regardless of its source, is important.
And so as we move through this effort of this command and
bringing value added to our ongoing programs, I am very
confident that should we find a way that we can come back and
recommend that we can do a better job, that we will come back
to you with that, because it is something that we would be
paying very close attention to as we implement the standup of
the command.
Secretary Henry. Mr. Chairman, I apologize, but if I just
might add--because we have asked for new authorities, and I
just would like you to be aware of them.
We have asked for a global commanders emergency response
fund--gets to the issue of timeliness. Right now, that is
limited to the theaters of Iraq and Afghanistan, and AFRICOM is
an excellent example of where that will make a difference.
We have also asked for increased 1206 authorities. That is
something that sits between the Title 10 and the Title 22
authorities where both secretaries approve them, but it is
extremely responsive. It meets the needs and it gives the
capability that you are asking about on how do we work those
interagency seams.
We think with a deputy commander--deputy to the commander
from the State Department we will be able to work the Title 10,
Title 22 issues for FMF specifically much better than we have
in the past.
But I would emphasize that those--the 1206 authorities and
the global commander emergency response funds would be a
critical addition to the capability here.
Mr. Davis of Kentucky. Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Reyes.
Mr. Reyes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and particularly, thank
you for holding this hearing.
I have concerns that we are taking too long to establish
where the Africa Command is going to be located. I hope we get
a resolution soon.
I led a trip of Members through the Horn of Africa, so
there are going to be huge issues. When you factor in Libya,
the bridge to Spain and the impact they are having on Europe,
when you factor in Yemen and the other countries in and around
the Horn of Africa, intelligence is going to have, I think, a
huge part of the role that will be played by this new command.
So I hope we have a decision soon on where it is going to
be located.
I have a couple of questions. The first one deals with the
establishment of the J-2 in the Africa Command. How will that
change our intelligence coverage in the region?
Specifically, how will the Africa Command's J-2 differ from
the current command's--European Command--J-2?
And will there be--I am assuming there is going to have to
be, but will there be emphasis on long-term issues? One of the
big concerns that we have, and it was verified when we took the
trip into the Horn of Africa, is the rise of fundamentalism in
the region, particularly in the Sahel region.
So will there be more emphasis on those kinds of issues as
the new command stands up?
And then the last thing I would like for you to address is
how will the Africa Command affect counterterrorism operations
which have been ongoing as we look at and talk about issues
like the pirates off of the coast of Somalia, the interaction
between Ethiopia and Kenya, in that vital region?
That is why I am hoping we make a decision quickly on where
that command is going to be located. So if you can cover those
areas, I would appreciate it.
Secretary Henry. Let me just start, and I know that General
Ward will have more specifics for you.
First of all, we understand your impatience on where the
command is going to be, and each and every one of us, as we
have approached the problem, that is the first thing we ask.
But as we have gone into this and looked at it deeper and
deeper, the key is how does the command operate, not where it
is.
And the worst thing we think we could do is rush into a
bricks-and-mortar solution that has a lot of military
construction (MILCON) associated to it and will lack
adaptability.
And rather, we have tried to create a command and a command
structure that will be able to be out there and interfacing and
gathering information that you are concerned about, not just at
one specific place, but across the entire area of
responsibility.
And we think that we have come up with a tiered innovative
structure that will allow us to do that. Part of that tier has
been a concept of reach back to individuals who do not need to
be on the continent.
And for purposes not necessarily for collection but of
intelligence analysis, it is not necessarily essential that the
analysts be at the spot that he is looking at.
And so initially a part of the intelligence personnel are
going to be currently where they are within the--Jack
Molesworth, as part of where the European Command intelligence
is, and they will be separated off and be the AFRICOM cell that
will respond directly to General Ward.
And he will also have a staff at his headquarters
supporting him. But I would like to emphasize that not only do
we need intelligence in Africa, but we also need information.
And so we will be putting probably a much greater reliance
on open source information and being able to use that, and
interfaces through the diplomatic reporting.
So we plan to take a 360-degree approach in getting
information to the commander so that he can make the best
decisions.
General Ward. Mr. Chairman, you mentioned the J-2. One of
the things that will cause this command to be different from
the existing combatant commands is that our J-2 is the Director
of Intelligence and Knowledge Development.
We know that we have to integrate in a very substantial way
all sources of intelligence--the traditional sources as you are
so familiar with; as the under secretary pointed out, also the
open source piece and how we will interact with other partners
on the continent, many of whom, although have very good access
to information, are not in typical classified channels.
But we know the importance of all of that, and
understanding what is happening on the continent from a
strategic level, quite frankly, down to the tactical level.
This command and its intelligence and knowledge development
construct will have to be able to look at strategic-level
intelligence, through the operational level, down to the
tactical level as our personnel are out doing what they do to
help increase the capacity of our partner nations.
And we understand the role that we also have to ensure that
what we are doing as a part of the Operation Enduring Freedom-
Trans Sahel, as a part of the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism
Partnership (TSCP) program in the north, in the Horn of Africa
with what is being done by the Combined Joint Task Force
(CJTF)-Horn of Africa, understanding those programs,
integrating those efforts, and ensuring that we can provide the
type of overarching intelligence infrastructure that will be
able to fuse intelligence, understand the situation, and then
as appropriate do something with it.
So we will look to build a command to, in fact, do those
very things.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Kline.
Mr. Kline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.
General Ward, it is great to see you again. I think it has
been some 15 years since we had a chance to chat when we were
much younger and serving together, in fact, in the Horn of
Africa.
In that operation, Operation Restore Hope (ORH), that was
under Central Command. In this new construct, were that same
operation to take place with the existence of AFRICOM, it would
be the same militarily except it would fall under your command
rather than Central Command, is that correct?
General Ward. That is correct, Congressman.
Mr. Kline. And with the current training operations that
are going on across Africa, many of which are being conducted
by forces from Special Operations Command (SOC), that is now
under the overwatch, I suppose, mostly of EUCOM.
That will continue just as it is today, except under
AFRICOM, is that correct?
General Ward. Correct.
Mr. Kline. Just a couple of--I assumed that was the case. I
just wanted to make sure that was the case.
I am constantly concerned about--and this is probably more
addressed to Secretary Henry. When you look at the number of
combatant commands--I was looking at a number yesterday.
Our combatant commands consume something over 15,000 people
and over $3 billion a year to run these combatant commands. And
now we are creating a new one. So a number of my colleagues
have already addressed this issue, and I don't want to dwell on
it.
But what this is going to cost is important. We are using
up people. And you have explained that we are going to, at
least initially, draw from joint billets.
That implies that we have some spare joint billets out
there, and I am not sure that is the case. So in the long term,
the size of this command does matter.
And then to the point that my friend and colleague from
Texas Chairman Reyes made, where the headquarters exist
probably does matter. I don't share his urgency in getting an
answer to that, but this is a question for anybody who would
like to address it.
Can AFRICOM work effectively from Stuttgart, from Europe
today, and could it next year and the year after that? In other
words, in terms of being able to provide the command structure
and the overwatch and the things that are necessary, can it
function effectively out of Europe? Anybody.
Secretary Henry. Yes, it can function effectively. Will it
be at its optimum level? We definitely think not, and we think
to get the most effectiveness out of it, it is important that
the commander and his key staff are on the continent.
Right now, Central Command functions out of Tampa----
Mr. Kline. Exactly.
Secretary Henry [continuing]. Pacific Command out of
Hawaii, and Southern Command out of Miami. So it is not
necessary, but----
Mr. Kline. Well, let me interrupt, then, just for a minute.
Then why do we feel this urgency to rush into the continent,
when it has been already presented that right now there is
nobody eagerly seeking our presence there, when we--as you
pointed out--we are working out of Tampa, we are working out of
Hawaii.
That is a long way from anywhere in the Pacific Command
where we might employ forces. Why do we feel this rush to put
something on the ground on the continent?
Secretary Henry. Well, I guess there are two things I would
take exception with. One is that there is not people that want
us there. There are a number of countries that have come
forward, one publicly, several privately, that have asked us to
consider them.
And we don't feel we want for places, if we were to put in
a headquarters, on where that would be.
The second thing is I would take issue with the fact that
we are rushing. Actually, we have been very deliberate. We have
been thinking about this over a year, and we still are telling
you that we are out gathering facts. We are doing it in a
deliberative fashion.
One thing that we think will be somewhat--I don't want to
say special, but this command will be a leader in is
adaptability and the ability to change to the environmental
circumstances.
And as we come forward and think about the command
structure and its placement, that is one of the considerations
we want to have, is how will this be able to adapt to security
situations on the continent.
And we don't want to get locked into some place that would
cause difficulty later on. So I would just take issue that we
are rushing into it.
It is the goal of the Secretary to have a decision on where
the physical and geographical location of the different
elements of the command will be as it initially comes on the
continent, not necessarily the final disposition, by the end of
this fiscal year.
To address your issue on manpower and manning, another
thing that is somewhat unique about AFRICOM is this is the
first time we have stood up a command that hasn't been in the
shadow of some sort of emergency or conflict.
And we are doing it in an anticipatory fashion. And in so
doing, it has caused us to go back and look at the manning
across all of the combatant commands.
And we are in the process of taking the study and
understanding of how we rationalize manning for combatant
commands, what are critical functions, which things can be
replicated in different commands and what things need to be
unique in different commands.
And that will all be folded into how the long-term manning
for AFRICOM is handled.
Mr. Kline. Okay. Thank you very much.
I see my time is about to expire, and ever in my continuous
effort to set the example for my colleagues, I will yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
The gentleman from Arkansas, Dr. Snyder.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for your service. I can see Ambassador Mull
is looking around. There we go.
I think it was 10 years ago or maybe even more when General
Joulwan was here--and I had worked in Africa a couple times as
a doctor in the olden days, 6 months in Sierra Leone and 3
months as part of the Ethiopian refugee relief in 1985.
And so I asked him if he would benefit from more resources.
We would like to be able to do more as far as work in Africa.
And he was almost pleading for additional help.
And General James Jones has made very eloquent statements
here at some length about the need to be more involved in
Africa.
So I think what you are doing is very important. I am glad
that you all are being very sensitive to dealing with some of
the concerns expressed by some of the nations down there. I
mean, the whole point of this is to help us and not to hurt us.
I will have to say--this is just one person's opinion--my
own view is that our foreign policy for the last several years
has been far too dependent on military, and to the exclusion of
the diplomatic corps.
I would think that perhaps some of that apprehension you
are hearing is in view of what has gone on for the last several
years. My own view is that we have underfunded the State
Department.
We should have more redundancy in the State Department so
you could respond to more things around the world. But
hopefully we will deal with those issues.
Ambassador Mull, I wanted to ask you a question, if I
might, on a somewhat related topic, but when the town meeting
at the State Department was held a couple of weeks ago, one of
the concerns that was expressed was inadequacy of treatment of
health care--specifically, mental health conditions--from
people who had served in Iraq as State Department employees.
Our Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee has been
looking at these issues of why people from the civilian side
are less inclined to go to Iraq. And it concerned me that that
was expressed openly, that this person thought that she had
received inadequate mental health care.
What is your feeling on that? You responded to the other
question. Perhaps you can enlighten us about the status of
mental health services for employees when they return from
Iraq.
Ambassador Mull. Thank you, Congressman Snyder, for the
opportunity to comment on that issue. My friend and colleague,
Ambassador Harry Thomas, recently was appointed as the Director
of Human Resources at the State Department and Director General
of the Foreign Service, and he has set as one of his top
priorities addressing those concerns.
It is true it has been a long time since American Foreign
Service officers have been serving in war zones, as they have
in the past five years.
And I am not an expert. I am not responsible for this area
within the State Department. But I think it is probably fair to
say that our institutional capability to respond to the unique
needs of Foreign Service officers who serve in combat zones
perhaps are not all that they could have been.
I know Ambassador Thomas is working very hard to look at
what institutions we have in place and has already made some
progress in coming up with some plans to make sure that not
only do we take care of our own when they come back, not only
take care of any physical medical problems they have but any
mental or emotional problems as well.
And not just for the employee, but also to make sure that
we are taking care of their families as well.
Dr. Snyder. So what you are saying today is that it is
still a work in progress in terms----
Ambassador Mull. Yes.
Dr. Snyder [continuing]. That person's public comment that
was picked up by the press was not an inaccurate description of
the current state of things, that there is a need for better
resources for State Department personnel when they return from
a war zone.
Is that what you are saying, that it is still a work in
progress?
Ambassador Mull. Yes.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you.
And one specific question, if I might ask Secretary Henry,
would you--if I might--and tell me if it is inappropriate to
ask today.
Would you make any comments you would like to make on the
status of the relationship currently and the likelihood of
military hostilities between Eritrea and Ethiopia and what the
posture of the United States is with regard to that potential
shooting war again? Thank you.
Secretary Henry. Yes, I will take it to a certain degree
and then let Ambassador Mull also take it. The State Department
does have the lead in foreign policy in our government.
But we are monitoring it. We have concerns as we have seen
the buildup of forces. Here lately we have seen a backing away
of that which we find encouraging. But we don't think that it
will be to the benefit of either party or the United States if
conflict were to break out there.
Ambassador Mull. I agree with the Under Secretary. It is
obviously a critical fault line in African security. The
potential conflict between these two states has deep historic
roots.
We have been working very energetically through diplomatic
channels to try and prevent it from happening, and we continue
to monitor it very closely.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Dr. Gingrey.
Dr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I know the issue of
the command headquarters, gentlemen, has been discussed a good
bit this morning.
I would like to just specifically ask you, in regard to the
temporary headquarters that I guess is shared jointly with
European Command in Stuttgart, how much investment have we
already made there in regard to bricks and mortar and security
and infrastructure?
And the question I think from Colonel Kline and maybe some
others and the response indicating that a lot of our commands
are not necessarily located in a central area of the particular
command--so if you can address that.
And then the other thing that hasn't been asked--I notice
that Egypt, which is very much a part of the African continent,
is not part of this new Africa Command.
Maybe it would seem obvious why it isn't, but it is not
totally obvious to me, certainly not from a geographic
perspective. You would think that clearly it should be part of
this new command.
And maybe we can start with that specific question, since
the other has already been touched on to some extent.
And I think I would like to start with General Ward in
regard to that question, Commander, if you could respond to
that.
General Ward. Congressman Gingrey, I think the question of
Egypt is more appropriately dealt with by the Under Secretary
here, so I will leave that to him with respect to the unified
command plan as currently set.
With regards to the headquarters, the interim headquarters
in Stuttgart--Stuttgart, as a part of our current set, is an
enduring location for our Department of Defense posture.
As the decision was taken to stand up AFRICOM there in
Stuttgart, it takes advantage of several things. First, it
takes advantage of the physical location of EUCOM currently
dealing with Africa quite a bit, so as many of those personnel
transition to AFRICOM, any costs associated with moving them is
taken away.
Looking at Kelly Barracks where the current headquarters is
established for AFRICOM--again, already in place,
infrastructure already there, set, no additional bricks and
mortar required. There are costs incurred with respect to
bringing----
Dr. Gingrey. General, that satisfies me on that question,
and I thank you for that response.
Let's go directly to Secretary Henry in regard to the issue
of Egypt.
Secretary Henry. Egypt took some thought, a lot of
consultation with the current combatant commanders. We have had
consultations with the Egyptians.
And we, for reasons of a large foreign assistance and
security assistance account that we currently have with Egypt--
the administrative processes are already set up through Central
Command.
And plus, you know, Egypt does look toward the Middle East,
and has large and significant involvements there. We felt for
administrative purposes it would be best to keep Egypt in
Central Command.
But that being said, any activity that we are doing on a
multinational basis that Egypt is invited to attend--I am sure
that when General Ward has his different meetings and that that
their representatives will be invited to attend.
And so for purposes from an operational perspective, the
administrative aspect on our part, our military organization,
that Egypt will be invited in to participate to the same degree
that any other of the other 52 countries on the continent will
be.
And they are a member of the African Union, and we plan on
treating them as such.
Dr. Gingrey. Absolutely. And, Mr. Secretary--or maybe,
Ambassador Mull, you may want to comment on this as well in the
little bit of time I have got left--it seems to me that it
could lead to some confusion.
And that is there a possibility that somewhere down the
line, after we achieve victory in the Middle East in Operation
Iraqi Freedom specifically--that at some future date we may
want to take another look at that and include Egypt as part of
AFRICOM?
Secretary Henry. The unified command plan is actually under
continuous review. It comes up for a formal review every two
years. And we are always looking at seam issues. And this is
what we refer to as a seam.
And we have previously had difficult seams on the African
continent. This is the one on the continent that remains, and
there are reasons to go either way, but we do continue to look
at it, though.
Dr. Gingrey. Well, it looks like some of these political
gerrymandered maps that we have for congressional districts. So
hopefully at some point we can clarify that. Thank you.
And I yield back.
Mr. Taylor [presiding]. The chair recognizes the
gentlewoman from California, Ms. Sanchez.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, gentlemen, for being before us today and for
your service to our country.
I had the opportunity last year between Christmas and New
Year's to go to Darfur and Sudan and Chad and Djibouti to visit
troops and to see what was going on. And I do believe that we
need to concentrate more time, obviously, on Africa and that
continent.
So I do believe that something like an African Command
would be important, and I think it would be important to put it
in Africa someplace. I don't know where that is. I guess that
is one of the things we are trying to figure out.
I also represent Orange County, which has one of the
largest refugee resettlement programs from all different types
of conflicts, so you can imagine that our current resettlement
happens to be those people from that continent, quite a few
conflicts having gone over the last few years and continuing
there.
My question really deals with this whole issue of the fact
that since we have had this war on terrorism and we have--it
seems to me that the complaints that I have received from so
many different places around the world--not just Africa or
Europe or anyplace, but from our embassies around the world is
that in many cases, we now have--because of the issue of
terrorism, we have so many resources going into and have more
military people within the umbrella of our embassy missions in
countries.
And some have even stated that there seems to be more
military people than even State Department and Commerce
Department and other people that we have traditionally had
within the embassy enclaves, if you will.
And to some, in particular at the State Department, there
seems to be a faltering in the sense that maybe we are using
too many military assets. Certainly, there is more money coming
in from that direction, and so they feel this emphasis coming
in from the military where they think maybe that might be
hindering what they are doing.
So my question is when we are looking at this African
Command, it is really the first model of how do we put in some
of this other infrastructure from the State Department.
My question is how will we ensure that, in fact, we do
those stabilization and regrouping, if you will, in these
countries more to the extent of peacetime sorts of activities
rather than another emphasis and another dumping of money into
the military side of things?
And I would ask both the General and the Ambassador to
comment on--you know, it is important we stand this up, and it
is important to have that model of both working together.
But how do we really move away from such a military
presence in countries versus a more nurturing sort of
relationship that we really need in Africa?
Ambassador Mull. I will be happy to take that question
first, Congresswoman Sanchez. Thank you very much. You raise a
very good question.
And as a diplomat who has spent much of the last 10 years
myself working overseas, I agree with you that we have to be
concerned that we not convey to our partners around the world
that we have a militarized foreign policy.
And so I think you are right to raise the concern. But I
don't think we have to worry about it so much in that when we
look at the total amount of assistance that we provide to
Africa, it is of an overwhelming nonmilitary nature in terms of
providing economic development funds, humanitarian assistance,
assistance to infrastructure building, to building democratic
society, civil society.
In many of these countries, the amount of military
assistance or military-oriented assistance that we provide is
really just a tiny fraction.
And I think that will continue even with the standup of
AFRICOM because the problems that we face in Africa are
overwhelmingly nonmilitary in nature.
That said, the military plays a very important role in
these countries in providing stability and responding to fast-
moving humanitarian crises.
And we hope that through AFRICOM we will be able to
coordinate on our own side of the table, too, on the U.S.
Government side, in making sure that AID and the State
Department and the various resources that the military has to
bring to the table are all coordinated in responding to it.
I would note that the White House did designate the State
Department as having the lead within our government in
responding to stabilization and reconstruction activities.
Secretary Rice has a special coordinator, Ambassador John
Herbst, who is in charge of those efforts. And that will ensure
that our response to these emerging situations is not primarily
military in nature.
Although the military does play a very, very important
part, nevertheless the State Department will be in the lead.
Ms. Sanchez. If I could just give a chance to the General
to comment on that.
Mr. Reyes [presiding]. Very quickly, General.
General Ward. The role of the United States military,
ma'am, is an important role because what we do as we interact
with militaries, and given the point that was made by the
ambassador, the role that militaries play in those societies--
we are able to interact.
We are able to be a force for causing their work to be more
reflective of a situation that causes them to be seen as
protectors of their people, as opposed to oppressors.
And so that example, that side by side--you take the
example today of our African Partnership Station, where we have
a platform that is offshore, with ship riders--that is,
representatives from other African countries who come aboard,
get instructions on how to be better maintainers of equipment,
better sharers of information, and in so doing, doing things
that help enhance their society.
That is the role that we play in these emerging and
maturing democracies that causes the military to be seen as a
force for a positive development, as opposed to otherwise. And
that is our role, and I think it does not supplant the role of
the other agencies. It just complements those additional
efforts.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Reyes. I thank the gentlelady.
And I just advise the members there are going to be four
votes. We should be able to get through probably two members.
Mr. Thornberry, you are up next.
Mr. Thornberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Henry, let me just clarify. You talked about some
of the intelligence assets, followed to Chairman Reyes'
question, coming from EUCOM--Molesworth and so forth.
Are intelligence assets being transferred from CENTCOM as
well?
Secretary Henry. I am not aware of any specific ones, but
let me take that for the record to be able to get back to you.
Obviously, we do have the activities going on in the Horn of
Africa.
[The information referred to was not available at the time
of printing.]
I know those responsibilities and resources will be
transferred over. We haven't made that transfer of the Horn of
Africa to the sub-unified command of Africa yet, so those
haven't taken place yet, and I will have to get back to you on
exactly what the plan is for doing that.
Mr. Thornberry. Well, it obviously may be worth attention.
If you have got intelligence analysts expert in that region,
and now it is going to be under General Ward, obviously they
need to go----
Secretary Henry. Yes, and I would differentiate between
those at the command level of Central Command and the
intelligence assets and that that we are using both at Joint
Task Force Horn of Africa and then those that are part of
Special Operations Forces, too.
Mr. Thornberry. Of course.
General Ward, it seems to me you have a tremendous
opportunity building this command from the ground up without a
crisis. Secretary Ryan said the watchword was going to be
adaptability.
You have had numbers of questions about the interagency
piece, how this can be an example for others about the agencies
actually working together.
But the other side of it is if you are successful in really
leading the way on interagency, you are going to meet
resistance. I mean, one of two things is going to happen.
You are either really going to do it and the folks whose
interests are threatened are going to complain about it and try
to stop it, or it is going to be lip service and there won't
really be change at all.
I guess what I am most curious about is how are you going
to overcome that resistance when it comes. Because I believe
when there is real change there is inevitably resistance from
the institutional interests that are threatened by that.
General Ward. Thank you, Congressman. I think we are going
to overcome it--by demonstrating on the ground through the
execution of programs that we will bring value added.
And right now, we have examples of that. We have the work
that is going on, quite frankly, in OEF-TS, in CJTF-Horn of
Africa, where we brought together an interagency, a
multidisciplinary team of folk to cause results to be enhanced
because of our collective efforts, as opposed to doing it in
separate, independent stovepipe ways.
The more that we do, sir, the more all will be seeing that
this construct works to their advantage as well, and being a
part of that construct enhances the work that they do.
The Africans will see it, and I believe our international
and interagency partners likewise will see that, that it makes
sense.
Mr. Thornberry. Well, I think you are right. It was
suggested to me last week, for example--Center for Strategic
and International Studies (CSIS) issued a report that called
for a major global health initiative.
And it was suggested to me this would be an excellent
opportunity for AFRICOM to take that in a supporting fashion,
but to prove that this is not a militarization or to dispel all
the myths that you laid out at the beginning, that that could
be an opportunity to prove it with more than words.
But I hope, as you try to do that, that you will be willing
and able to go however high you need to go, including coming to
this committee, to overcome the obstacles to make you
effective.
I yield back. Thank you.
The Chairman [presiding]. I thank the gentleman.
We have five votes on the floor. I believe we have time for
Ms. Davis, and then we will adjourn.
And, gentlemen, we will ask you to remain until we come
back.
Ms. Davis.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to all of you for being here and certainly for
your service as well.
I am going to try and move through this really quickly. I
appreciate the comments of my colleague Mr. Thornberry, because
I, too, have some concerns about the interagency focus and how
we do that.
I did have an opportunity to be on the continent in August.
And we talk a lot about the vision for the African Command.
And one of the things I did hear, and I guess I heard this
from men and women serving on the ground, is that there was so
much confusion for them for what that might be, because there
were multiple commands that were essentially giving orders, and
they seemed to be sometimes at odds.
So I think, you know, that is something that obviously is a
work in progress in some ways. And I hope that we can work
through that.
My other question really is how we bring in not just the
State Department and the Pentagon, essentially, but how we
expand that to other tools of government. We know, certainly,
in Iraq and Afghanistan, whether it is commerce, whether it is
agriculture, but those also need to be important tools as well.
And where I think would be important to demonstrate is how
decisions that are made might well go--you know, this is the
thing we need, but we are going to give the tools to USAID,
because they can do that better than the military can do it.
How do you see that process working so that this is really
a shared pool of resources, as opposed to one that seems to be
more in the hands of one department or another?
Secretary Henry. Again, I am concerned maybe that we are
not getting our message across--$9 billion the U.S. Government
invests in Africa, 3 percent of that, $250 million, is in DOD.
Ninety-seven percent of it is in other places where they can do
a better job.
What AFRICOM is about is understanding that many of those
programs--part of their success has to do with the security
aspect of it. It is very few programs that are going to be
successful in trying to build the civil society that only go to
one pillar of what that civil society is.
And that is what the recognition within AFRICOM is, is it
is going to take a multidisciplinary approach to do it. And to
date, when it comes to the military and the stability and
security aspect of it, the DOD has been involved episodically,
when there has been a crisis or when there has been an
exercise.
And now we are making the investment of putting one of our
best four-star commanders on the continent with a staff that
can be sustained and involved but approach those problems from
an interagency, integrated fashion, of which the majority of
the time DOD, within the U.S. Government, will be in a
supporting role, and almost all the time the U.S. Government
will be in a supporting role to African endeavors.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, I
appreciate that. What I am reflecting somewhat is the
perception of people that were on the ground and their feelings
about this. And so I think that it is important to try and make
clear--I appreciate that----
Secretary Henry. And we will continue. Our interactions
have been with the ambassadors, and not other members of the
staff, as we have gone to stand up AFRICOM.
Mrs. Davis of California. A quick question--I just want to
make sure and get this in--in terms of personnel, because we
have said that, in fact, you are going to be pulling from other
resources in some cases, and that seems like an appropriate
thing to do.
But the kinds of resources, I think, that you need are in
health care, perhaps, in special ops, and we know that we are
struggling in those areas in other places. And so I would like
to know how we are doing that.
A second question is whether or not we need to expand
services at Stuttgart or, again, whether--if we do locate a
command--however you want to call it--on the continent, what
arrangements would be made for people to have families
accompanying them in that effort?
And especially, I think, in the Stuttgart situation, are we
able to do that now? And will we be able to do it as well for
State Department officials?
Secretary Henry. In regards to the Stuttgart, we are making
some improvements on an interim basis since that is not a
permanent headquarters.
In regards to accompanied tours, State Department does that
very successfully already on the continent. We are looking at
different models where we can work with State Department to
have commonality of services.
As we build our regional integration teams, their specific
role with the local embassy, we are looking at different models
where we can get economies of scale.
So those are all part of the process that we are looking at
now.
Mrs. Davis of California. And health officials to be part
of this mission? Where do you see those?
Secretary Henry. Yes. There will be an element of that. To
what degree depends on which programs are there, which agency
has the leadership on it, and how it is best for us to
interface it.
We are sensitive to this issue of DOD coming in and
overwhelming either other programs within the U.S. Government
or, in some cases, the African host state and their security
capabilities.
And so one of the feedback that we have gotten as we have
gone around is don't overwhelm us, and the lower the profile,
probably the more effective you will be. And that has a lot to
do with what our approach is.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
We will return after the votes, and we appreciate your
being with us when we return. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Ms. Castor [presiding]. The committee will return to order.
I am pleased to recognize Mr. Wilson for questions.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And thank all of you for being here today. And in lieu of
questions, I want to extend a warm and cordial invitation for
General Ward to move to Charleston, South Carolina.
And this is on behalf of my two colleagues, Congressman
Henry Brown, Congressman Jim Clyburn, who both represent
Charleston. I was born in the holy city of Charleston. It is a
wonderful place to be.
It would be a wonderful site for the African Command. In
fact, I have presented you an invitation from the Charleston
Metro Chamber of Commerce inviting the African Command to be
located in Charleston.
And there is so much in common that we have, particularly
with West Africa, that would make persons feel right at home.
And indeed, I have had the privilege of visiting in Sudan, and
Kenya, and South Africa, and Ghana, and Liberia and Cape Verde.
And as I was visiting with people in those countries, I
found such a kinship with South Carolina, but Charleston and
the low country in particular.
And I would want you to be aware that the Naval Weapons
Station Charleston would be an ideal location. It has ample
acreage, a secure military facility. It is home of Space and
Naval Systems Command (SPAWAR) Charleston, which can provide
all the technology needed for the command's security and
communications systems.
Additionally, it has already been cited that there is the
precedence of commands located outside of the area that they
cover. Particularly we have the Southern Command in Miami, the
Central Command in Tampa, the U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) in
Honolulu.
Charleston, again, has such a strong relationship with the
African continent. And specifically where it could be so
beneficial, Charleston is the transportation hub for the United
States Transportation Command as well as the primary seaport
for container cargo between the United States and the south
Atlantic.
The Port of Charleston ranks number one for container
traffic, handling approximately 50 percent of all container
traffic to and from the south Atlantic.
Charleston Air Force Base provides nearly all of the
strategic airlift support for Africa for our government, to
include embassy support.
SPAWAR Charleston is the leading provider for command and
control and communication for European Command's (EUCOM) role
in Africa. SPAWAR also supports embassy security operations and
could stand up an AFRICOM command center at SPAWAR Charleston
in a matter of days.
Other relationships include the greater Charleston medical
community, which is a world-class medical community for
training and education, as well as patient support.
Additionally, most of the rapid deployment forces which
would support an African operation to include special
operations are in the southeastern part of the United States
surrounding Charleston.
Charleston is the hub for all military transportation,
airlift, sealift and prepositioning. Also, the cultural
linkages between Africa, Charleston and South Carolina have
existed for centuries, and this could bring enormous
development and cultural opportunities for both Africa and the
United States.
In fact, a few minutes ago I was speaking with Congressman
Clyburn and he and I, both of Charleston background, were
commenting how the local dialect of Gullah, which is spoken in
South Carolina, actually originated in West Africa.
Additionally, the AME Church, the African Methodist
Episcopal Church of South Carolina, is partnered with the AME
Church of Liberia, and I have visited the AME University of
Monrovia. And so there is a close connection.
And so I want to make it perfectly clear that Charleston
and all of South Carolina would welcome the Africa Command,
that indeed visiting dignitaries of Africa and persons assigned
would enjoy living and visiting in America's most historic
city.
The invitation is clear. It is wide open. You are welcome
to Charleston, South Carolina for Africa Command.
I yield the balance of my time.
Ms. Castor. Ms. Shea-Porter.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you.
And I absolutely agree with my colleague. I would like to
see it anywhere except on the continent of Africa, and so that
is my conversation here today.
I am very concerned about actually having a physical
presence, as you have stated, because I do believe that while
it looks reasonable to us, the rest of the world is not going
to accept our reasons for it.
And so I wanted to ask, what are the top three reasons for
actually physically placing this on the continent somewhere?
And right now, there is one country, I believe, Liberia, that
has expressed an interest, right?
Secretary Henry. Publicly.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Okay, publicly.
Secretary Henry. One country publicly has. Several have
privately.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Well, it is pretty important that they can
be public and not private. Whatever people say privately does
not count because I think that the private ones are reflecting
the will and the attitude of their own people, which is that
they don't want it.
So I understand all the reasons for paying attention to the
continent of Africa. I think it is a wise idea. I do not
understand why we need to be there physically. So could you
please tell me, anybody, the top three reasons?
Secretary Henry. I will be glad to give you the top three
that I have been associated with. The first is actually,
contrary to your feelings, as we have gone around and talked to
leaders of the different African countries, they said it would
be important to have the commander on the continent.
It would show a sense of commitment, a sense of equality,
that we are treating them as equals, rather than a sense of
colonialism, which is something that they are sensitive to. So
that is the first reason.
The second one is we think that we can do a more effective
job of having the commander, his key staff members, and those
that interface with the Africans to be there and to be living
in the environment.
They will have more empathy for the type of problems and
issues that they are going to be faced with rather than if they
are displaced.
And the third one is while we have done it in four
different locations, had the combatant command displaced, we
have found that is not the most effective way to do it. And
given the opportunity to go back and re-look at those, we might
not have made the same decision that we originally made.
So for those three reasons, that is--
Ms. Shea-Porter. By that thinking, though, we probably
should also move our other centers of command, right, because
we have one in Hawaii instead of actually in any of the Pacific
nations, other nations.
So has anybody considered how this might look to the rest
of the world, considering our difficulties right now in the
Middle East and our inability to convince people that our
motives, while good--you know, we are having trouble getting
that across.
Secretary Henry. Yes, Congresswoman, we have. And that has
been a subject of consultations both with multinational
organizations, extensive consultations in Europe to get the
non-African opinion.
And all of them applaud not only standing up AFRICOM but
having a presence on the continent.
Ms. Shea-Porter. All of them.
Secretary Henry. Yes.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Okay.
Secretary Henry. Of the non-African countries that we have
consulted.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Okay. Would you be able to get that list
to me so that I could also look at that? I was surprised to
hear my colleague earlier talk about the resistance from some
about having us physically there.
We have to look at the appearances of it.
Secretary Henry. We will be glad to share with you those
in--of the Europeans, and that--there is not an issue.
With some of the African countries, though, they gave us
that information in confidentiality, so if we were to send it
up here, it would have to be currently on a classified basis.
Ms. Shea-Porter. And again, I am concerned that they don't
feel they can speak publicly. It says that their nation or they
suspect that their nation's people would not support that also,
if they cannot speak publicly about this.
Secretary Henry. That is one issue. The other issue is one
of timing and when they think it would be appropriate to come
forward on that.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Okay. And my other question is exactly how
many people are you envisioning there. I heard earlier, and
maybe I didn't hear right, but how many people would you think
would be wherever we wind up building?
And how many would be military and how many would be State
Department?
Secretary Henry. We don't have the exact numbers on the mix
because that is something we are still determining.
The command structure, again, being sensitive to what
Africans have told us--they said it is important to be there,
but it is also important to be low profile.
So currently the thinking is that there would be a command
hub where the commander and members of his immediate staff
would be, and then there would be five regional integration
teams dispersed throughout the continent.
And then there will be a presence in approximately 26 of
the embassies, too, so it is a very dispersed, low-profile
presence that we are trying to achieve for the very reasons
that you are concerned with, desire by the Africans to have us
there, to have a commander there, but also not to have too high
of a profile.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Is there a reason we can't get this done
with our embassies there right now, that we can't have that
face-to-face contact that you are talking about?
Is there some reason we can't utilize our embassies and our
embassy personnel and actually have----
Secretary Henry. We definitely are now and we will continue
to do that in the future. That will not meet all the needs,
though, of a command staff for a unified command.
Ms. Shea-Porter. And the last question is do you have any
idea what this would cost annually?
Secretary Henry. We are looking at the cost. It will be
part--the cost will be reapportioned between other combatant
command activities we are doing now, so the net cost to the
taxpayer is zero.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Oh, let us go back over that. The net cost
to the taxpayer is zero. Do you have to build something there?
Secretary Henry. Yes, we do have to build something. We
have to build something for military construction. Then we will
delay----
Ms. Shea-Porter. Okay, so there is cost.
Secretary Henry. We will delay military construction other
places, so we would re-prioritize this higher than where those
dollars were going to be spent previously.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Okay, but there is cost. Any time we build
anything, whether it is good or bad or whatever, we are paying
for it.
Secretary Henry. They are not paying more to the Defense
Department accounts to have this capability.
Ms. Shea-Porter. So you are deferring, is what you are
saying. Okay. But do we know what your annual budget would be?
Do you have any--how far along are you? That is what I am
trying to figure out. How far are you along in this planning?
You have used terms like fully operational by, and, you
know, I am a little surprised to hear you are so far along. So
do you have a budget?
Secretary Henry. We have a budget for the current year, and
during this year we are going to be building what we refer to
as a program, a five-year look at what the costs are.
Ms. Shea-Porter. And what would that be?
Secretary Henry. Do you have the dollar amount for this
year?
General Ward. Congresslady, those dollar amounts in the out
years aren't known. Right now for our current operating
profile, it is about--and I am not exactly sure, but it is
about $75 million for just the year 2008.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Okay, and you said we have a $9 billion a
year aid cost, right, to the continent? Okay. All right. Thank
you.
I appreciate your being here to share this with us, and--I
am sorry, one last thing. When will this be fully operational?
Secretary Henry. It will have a fully operational
capability, which means that it will be able to assume all the
current missions assigned to that geographical area, on October
1st, 2008--is when it becomes fully operational.
That doesn't mean that it will have all the infrastructure
or it will be in the places it is going to be, but it will be
able to assume the mission set.
Ms. Shea-Porter. And how long have you been planning this?
Secretary Henry. The President made the decision on
December 15th of last year. He announced it in February. Prior
to taking that to the President, Secretary Rumsfeld had
different planning activities that had been going on for, I
don't know, a year or two prior.
We looked at a number of different models, finally gave him
a way that he felt comfortable with to take forward to the
President.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Maybe around 2004, is that what you are
telling me, two years previous to----
Secretary Henry. The initial thinking on this, I would say,
was in the 2005 time frame at a very low-level conceptual
thought process. Then in 2006 he instituted formal planning
processes to deliver options to him.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Okay. And again, I would like to say that
I do think it is a good idea to pay attention to the continent
of Africa, and I am very concerned about actual physical
presence there.
Thank you very much for being here.
Ms. Castor. Thank you.
And, gentlemen, could you take some time and describe our
current military presence on the continent of Africa, what our
missions are?
And also sketch out for us, to the best of your knowledge,
the extent of the State Department and USAID's work on the
continent in Africa, how they work together now and how you
would see the designation of a new command on the continent.
How will those missions change over time?
General Ward. The current military mission profile is being
carried out through U.S. European Command and through U.S.
Central Command, and specifically its Combined Joint Task
Force-Horn of Africa most predominantly.
U.S. Pacific Command has some limited activity in the ocean
islands off of the east coast of Africa.
Programs include in the northern part of Africa things
such--the program Operation Enduring Freedom-Trans Sahara,
which is the military element of the TSCTP, the Trans-Sahara
Counterterrorism Partnership, which is a counterterrorism
activity where we are partnering with nine north African
nations, improving their military capacity to control their
borders as they deal with the current terrorist threat that is
there in the northern part of the continent.
Additionally, you swing around--in the current Central
Command area of responsibility, the Horn of Africa--the
military efforts include counterterrorism, also include
humanitarian as well as efforts to improve and increase the
capacity of militaries in those Horn of Africa nations into
central Africa to improve their military capacity and
capability.
In the west of Africa, the Gulf of Guinea area, our
attempts to improve and enhance the maritime information and
maritime safety and security element of the Gulf of Guinea are
ongoing.
Those efforts are being carried out through our--currently
the naval component of U.S. European Command. And I will go
back to say that the activity in the north of Africa is being
carried out predominantly through the Special Operations
Command of the U.S. European Command.
In each case, those activities would fall under the work or
the umbrella of the U.S. Africa Command once it is stood up.
This notion of full operational capability implies many, many
elements, one of which is the notion that there are certain
things being done by other parts of the Department of Defense.
And instead of making redundant capabilities, there may be
instances where U.S. Africa Command will engage in a memorandum
of agreement, a memorandum of understanding with another
Department of Defense entity such that, you know, the work that
would be done, as opposed to being duplicated, will be being
done by that currently existing command construct.
In addition to that, on the continent of Africa we are
engaged in support of the State Department in their various
contingency operations and training assistance programs as they
are building the militaries of other nations to participate in
peacekeeping programs very specifically.
There is a support that is provided to that. There is work
that is being done in the form of other humanitarian efforts--
again, not that would be competing with the various efforts
going on--as an example, PEPFAR, the President's Emergency
Program for AIDS Relief, where there is a military piece of
that, because as we look at working with militaries in Africa,
as they want to engage in peacekeeping operations, one of the
constraints that has been placed on those forces by the African
Union is that those forces be HIV/AIDS free.
And so as we work with those militaries to cause, to the
best that we can, them be able to produce a force that is as
healthy as it can be, we then get involved military-to-military
as they certainly look toward that capacity.
There are other programs that are going on that we work on
the continent. Many of these programs are Title 22 programs out
of the Department of State, but they are being implemented with
our support and with our assistance.
Our foreign military financing, our international military
and educational training programs, whereby we work with the
Department of State country teams as they identify military
members that would come back to America to receive training,
that hopefully will go forth to them professionalizing their
forces.
There are additional training activities at the unit level
where we take into account the maturing level of militaries,
partnering them with their Noncommissioned Officer (NCO)
professional development programs, their professional
development programs, again causing those militaries to be seen
within their countries as--I call it forces for good, so that
the potential for them being seen as being oppressors of their
people goes away and they see in a better light insofar as
being protectors of their populations.
So this range of programs from military-to-military
assistance--I mentioned the State partnership program, where we
bring in our State partners, National Guards, Reserves, working
initially to enhance various military capabilities, from
maintenance training to increased awareness of air domain, to
moving on to additional areas of relationship-building--are all
ongoing.
And we would look to reinforce these efforts, focus these
efforts much better, and ensure that those efforts in
particular are efforts that are more supportive of and
complementary to efforts being taken by other elements of our
government in the developmental activities that they pursue.
Ambassador Mull. Speaking on behalf of the State
Department, Madam Chair, for many, many years, the State
Department has aimed to pursue a policy of diplomatic
universality in which we have posts in as many countries as
possible in the world.
And we currently have 50 embassies in Africa. There is only
a small handful of countries where we do not have embassies,
either very tiny countries or places where there are security
concerns such as in Somalia.
And the U.S. Agency for International Development, because
of our extensive foreign assistance operations, has either a
presence in each of those embassies or has regional
responsibilities for covering those places where we might not
have an AID mission in the country.
Military assistance is an important part but only a very
small fraction of the kinds of assistance that we provide. As
General Ward mentioned, our foreign assistance budget includes
such things as assistance for education, empowering civil
society, economic empowerment, antipoverty programs, women's
empowerment, helping people combat trafficking in persons,
human rights, humanitarian assistance, and response to natural
disasters and so forth.
We currently coordinate the military assistance that we do
provide. Previously, before AFRICOM was established, the
European Command had responsibility for Africa.
And in most of these embassies there is a Defense attache
or a security assistance officer who, up until this point, had
been coordinating with the European Command. Now they will
coordinate with AFRICOM in making sure our military assistance
is properly targeted.
Ms. Castor. Can you tell us how many personnel of the
Department of Defense are currently on the continent and how
many from the State Department in embassies and through USAID?
Secretary Henry. General Ward might correct me if I don't
get these right, but for the Department of Defense, we have
about 1,300 to 1,400 in the Task Force-Horn of Africa, which is
our major presence that we have.
We have Marine detachments at many of the embassies which
are a handful of people. We have Defense attaches in the
different embassies and offices of military cooperation. And
these are individuals to a few individuals in each of the
embassies.
And then we have periodic activities that we do as part of
the Trans-Sahara initiative.
General Ward. I think that is an accurate portrayal of the
presence. The most persistent presence is in the form of that
element that is in the Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa
headquartered in Djibouti.
As the under secretary pointed out, in selected embassies
there are the Defense attaches. And we only have insofar, as
security assistance officers, in what was the EUCOM area--that
was only in 9 countries, and I think there are another 3 or 4
in the CENTCOM area, so some number less than 15 security
assistance officers.
And each of those officers would have anywhere from one to
four or five military personnel associated with them.
There are other military members on the continent, but they
are in their rotational basis in and out, conducting
specialized training activities and exercise-related missions.
Once those training activities and exercises are conducted,
then they leave, so they are in there on a Temporary Duty
(TDY)-type of a basis.
Ambassador Mull. And, Madam Chair, for the State
Department, we have 853 State Department officers at embassies
in Africa, and that that is of a total--we estimate that
there--when you count all U.S. Government agencies attached to
an embassy in Africa, it is about 2,000.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Meek.
Mr. Meek. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I want to welcome the Secretary and General and
Ambassador for coming before the committee. There has been a
lot of running around with all of us with the votes and all,
and serving on other committees.
I know that you all have been talking a lot about placement
today, and that is not going to be--I don't want to spend a lot
of time on that.
But I think it is important, since we have gotten off to a
rocky start, which has improved from the people that I have
talked to, on the continent--and I wasn't here, and I don't
know if the chairman had an opportunity--who oversees the
African Subcommittee, Chairman Payne--did he have an
opportunity to ask any questions?
We were here having a discussion about some of the things
people are upset about on continent--and there is a lot of work
to be done. And I am glad that State is at the table.
I am glad that USAID and--I mean, there is just a number
of--and DOD--at the table to help smooth over some of these
issues.
But I think what I don't want to happen--I don't want to
get--I guess, Mr. Secretary and Ambassador, since you all are
representing jointly the two agencies in question--and, General
Ward, if you wish to chime in--on this issue of all of a sudden
I pick up the Washington Post and learn that the command has
been set in a country.
And it was based on an agreement where either the President
or the Secretary of State said that we would be, you know, we
would put our command there.
Because we have so many different issues amongst the
African countries--some get along with others, some don't get
along with others--down in Southern Command (SOCOM)--I mean,
Southern Command was once talked--it was once in Colombia.
Where was it located?
Secretary Henry. Panama.
Mr. Meek. Panama, I am sorry. In Panama. And then there was
a big discussion about moving it to Miami.
And the reason why they moved it to Miami and they didn't
move it to Tampa or move it over to Louisiana, there were a
couple of places that wanted the Southern Command, and other
countries, was that it had to be neutral ground, where all of
the partners, just about all of the partners, felt comfortable
in being there. Because it is South America, a Spanish language
or bilingual city was important.
And so I don't know if once we talk about should we be on
the continent or should we not be on the continent. I want to
know how this decision is going to be made.
Is it going to be made here in Washington? Is it going to
be made in the area? Will these countries be consulted? Do we
take a vote? I mean, what happens?
Because I am just trying to find out, because I think as we
look at this command, and as it starts to stand up and, fully
functional, and build its relationships within--because that is
going to be hard enough, and I know how clannish people are
about power and being able to control certain things.
And I know General Ward. He has to be a praying man to make
sure that everyone understands what has to happen here. And I
just want to know how that--I want to go a little deeper,
because I don't want to spend a lot of time on it.
I just want to--just give me a feel of how this decision is
going to be made. Is it going to be our decision or is it going
to be something that we work with our friends with on?
Secretary Henry. Well, it is a United States decision. You
know, it can't be made, and we are not going to go somewhere we
are not wanted. I mean, that is a fundamental precept we have
in our global force posture.
The process is one where a number of factors were put
together to come up with a short list of where we might look,
and it is all the issues you are talking about, military
issues, and it was a spectrum of issues.
There was a weighting system given to those, and there was
an analytical process to come up with a short list. At that
point in time, then a team goes out and does a site survey,
looking at the capacity and capability of that site to be able
to support the type of staff that we are talking about.
It also works with the embassy team and the country to get
their inputs. That is brought back, and then the evaluation
criteria are re-looked at with more detailed information.
There are a number of people besides the analysis team that
are involved in the process at that point in time, in making
recommendations to the Secretary. The combatant commander would
be one. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would be one.
Those who work in international policy would be one.
And at that point in time, then he will be briefed on what
the recommendations are, and I would imagine at that point in
time he would consult with the Secretary of State on this also.
As part of the evaluation effort--and the teams have put it
together--it is an integrated DOD-State Department team--and
bringing in other parts of the U.S. Government where
appropriate, and they have expertise to add.
The decision is taken to the Secretary, though, in
consultations with his peers and that--he is given the
decision, and then he would inform the President and make sure
that the President is comfortable with that decision.
Now, normally when we make decisions about what we are
doing with our U.S. forces, we consult with other countries who
are stakeholders in the process, but we make the decision, and
this would be done similarly.
But you can be confident that we will do significant
consultation prior to making a final decision outside of the
U.S. Government with our African partners and also perhaps with
key European partners.
Mr. Meek. You know, Mr. Secretary, one of the problems of
how we got off to a rocky start is that we told them what we
were going to do.
And that is what I am hearing back, not necessarily what I
heard from you all. This is what I am hearing from the folks
that are in country, some of the countries.
You know, you talk about African Command--they came in and
told us, you know, how the show is going to go.
And I am just saying that I just want to make sure that on
the State side that there is some massaging going on, and there
is a discussion that is going on, and making people feel that
they are a part of this, because without them, we are dead in
the water.
I mean, to be honest with you, as it relates to
communications, I think some of the best lessons learned have
been in the Middle East where we have consulted with other
countries and worked with them in a way and made them feel--I
am not saying that someone down in, I don't know, wherever,
what have you--or Tunis--is going to make a decision on what
the U.S. military and the State Department of the Federal
Government is going to do.
But I just want to make sure, as we move--especially as we
look at some of the issues that are in the continent,
especially as it relates to some of the issues that are in
Somalia and others, and the missions that have to be carried
out--humanitarian, militarily--that this relationship is so
very, very important.
I just wanted to say that, Madam Chair, quickly. I don't
know if they called us over, but I just need----
Ms. Castor. They did, but you have such a keen interest in
this. I want you to take all the time you need----
Mr. Meek. Okay. Well, thank you----
Ms. Castor [continuing]. To make sure we have----
Mr. Meek [continuing]. So very much. We won't miss the
vote. My interest won't go that far.
But I just want to make sure--thank you, though. I just
want to make sure that I don't pick up the Post and all of a
sudden a decision has been made. Where are we in that process
right now, that long process you just laid out?
Secretary Henry. We are in the process where teams have
gone out to gather information. That aspect of it has not
completed.
Mr. Meek. Okay.
Secretary Henry. So we don't have the detailed information
in order to do a second round of evaluation yet.
Mr. Meek. Okay. Well, that is the million-dollar question
right now, where it is going to be and where will it end up.
I guess the second end of things--and I am going to be in
Africa over the break and have an opportunity to see some of
the operations that we do have ongoing there, and also heavily
on the State side, understanding how we are doing things over
there and how we are going to approach it.
We start looking at the whole budget issue--I was in Tunis,
Tunisia a couple of years--no, I don't know, about three months
ago, three or four months ago--I was in Tunis, and I was--I
know that we have our advanced Arabic school there, and I know
that we have a great mission that is there.
And I took the opportunity to go visit the mission and talk
to not only the Defense attache but also the folks on the State
side.
One of their concerns is the fact that we really don't have
a good public affairs budget to be able to work with young
people that are being influenced by other forces that are out
there that are getting their attention, to put a positive image
on the United States of America.
And I just wanted to ask, what level are we going--and this
is the Armed Services Committee, but there has to be some--a
human side to this, or it is not going to work.
And I just want to make sure that we don't get too excited
about helicopters and things of that nature, and that we are--
that someone or some folks on this committee--because forcing
it through a square hole is not going to--you know, a square
peg through a round hole is just not going to happen.
And I think that is lessons learned from Iraq and
Afghanistan and some other areas, and where we are making great
leaps and bounds is when we incorporate this kind of--so talk
to me a little bit about what is happening on that side of the
ball.
How is that going to, General, feed into the command that
you have now? And who will be outside of State?
Because I am just telling you, I feel like a child that has
been in the middle of a domestic violence fight, and I know who
usually kinds of wins these fights when it comes down to these
issues, especially trying to do something in a joint way.
Who is going to be the advocate within DOD and the State
pushing, because, really, to get anything through this process
here, it has to be DOD. You know, on the State side folks are
like oh, you know, maybe, maybe I feel--I don't know.
But if the Department of Defense say that this is important
to our mission in that command, then it will be prioritized,
and we will have countries that will be able to receive--or
missions that--U.S. missions that will be able to receive the
dollars, that can work with African Command, to make sure that
that image that we want of the United States of America is the
best image that we can put forth, and have the resources to do
that.
And that is so very, very important.
Secretary Henry. Yes. I will let General Ward speak to
specifically what they are doing in the command. But I mean,
this is an example of the way that we do things interagency.
The President has designated the State Department for the
lead in public diplomacy and strategic communications, headed
by former Under Secretary Hughes. And we align ourselves with
those processes.
And I mean, on one hand, people are very concerned about
the militarization of foreign policy, and other times we get
urged to step forward and take charge.
And this is a case where State Department is in the lead.
They lay out the program and we support it, and we put
resources against it.
But until the President directs us otherwise, which we
would not recommend that he do, we are going to be in the
supporting role to the State Department on this.
Now, that doesn't mean that within the command there is not
certain aspects that go on, but setting the policy for it and
the overall program is the State Department's lead.
General Ward. Congressman Meek, one of the things that the
command will do by design--and we talked about this unique
structure. We have typically stumbled into these sorts of
things because we had not gotten it correct.
This command will have a director for outreach who is a
very senior and at this point in time nonmilitary member of the
team to ensure that following, as the under secretary pointed
out, you know, the lead of the Department of State in our
strategic communications activities, that we are aligned with
the Department of State, that we are, in fact, going out and
understanding from the perspective of our intended audience
what sorts of things will make a difference for them, and then
putting the programs in place to address their need for
understanding, information and perspective, again, from their
perspective.
And so this director of outreach--and again, not there yet
because, again, we are a command under construction, and those
elements are being built, but we are building those elements
with a very determined appreciation for the point that you have
just made there with respect to outreach and messaging and
strategic communications.
At the current time, you know, I am doing a lot of it
personally, quite candidly. As I have gone around the
continent, most recently, in central Africa last week at the
African Union headquarters, engaging with heads of state and
others--also with the media, but again--as well as at the
request of our ambassadors who are there on the continent.
As I attended one of their sessions here in Washington
where the Secretary of State brought in the----
Ms. Castor. Excuse me, General. We have five minutes left
to vote, so if you could just wrap it up, that would be
appreciated.
General Ward [continuing]. Brought in the sub-Saharan
ambassadors, messaging with them so that as they are talking
about the command, it is, again, speaking with one voice.
So we will remain sensitive to that, and structurally the
director of outreach will have that as a very specific part of
their portfolio.
Mr. Meek. And thank you, gentlemen.
And thank you, Madam Chair.
And I look forward to working with the three of you, all of
you in DOD and State, making sure that we have a smooth
approach in standing up this command. Thank you.
Ms. Castor. And thank you, Congressman Meek, for your
leadership on this issue.
Gentlemen, thank you very much.
And to everyone else in attendance, thank you for being
here.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:08 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
November 14, 2007
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
November 14, 2007
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]