[Senate Hearing 114-64]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-64
GLOBAL CHALLENGES AND U.S. NATIONAL
SECURITY STRATEGY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 10, 2015
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
96-248 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma JACK REED, Rhode Island
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama BILL NELSON, Florida
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
TOM COTTON, Arkansas KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JONI ERNST, Iowa JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska TIM KAINE, Virginia
MIKE LEE, Utah ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
TED CRUZ, Texas
Christian D. Brose, Staff Director
Elizabeth L. King, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
february 10, 2015
Page
GLOBAL CHALLENGES AND U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY............ 1
Edelman, Hon. Eric S., Panelist, National Defense Panel And
Former Under Secretary Of Defense For Policy................... 5
Flournoy, Hon. Michele A., Panelist, National Defense Panel And
Former Under Secretary Of Defense For Policy................... 7
(iii)
GLOBAL CHALLENGES AND U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m. in room
SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Senator John McCain
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators McCain, Inhofe,
Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis,
Sullivan, Reed, Nelson, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand,
Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN McCAIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman McCain. Good morning.
Since a quorum is now present, I would ask the committee to
consider the nomination of Dr. Ashton B. Carter to be Secretary
of Defense, and if a roll call is requested, we would be glad
to have a roll call. If not, is there a motion to--is there
anyone who would like a roll call vote?
Senator Manchin. Yes.
Chairman McCain. You want a roll call vote?
Senator Manchin. I want a roll call vote.
Chairman McCain. Yes, I don't know if we need it.
Senator Reed. We don't need it.
Senator Wicker. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recorded
as voting aye.
Chairman McCain. The clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Inhofe?
Senator Inhofe. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
Senator Sessions. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Wicker?
Senator Wicker. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Ayotte?
Senator Ayotte. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Fischer?
Chairman McCain. Aye, by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Cotton?
Senator Cotton. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
Senator Rounds. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Ernst?
Senator Ernst. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Tillis?
Senator Tillis. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Sullivan?
Chairman McCain. No instructions.
The Clerk. Mr. Lee?
Chairman McCain. Aye, by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Graham?
Chairman McCain. Aye, by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
Chairman McCain. Aye, by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Reed?
Senator Reed. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Nelson?
Senator Reed. Aye, by proxy.
The Clerk. Mrs. McCaskill?
Senator Reed. Aye, by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Manchin?
Senator Manchin. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Gillibrand?
Senator Gillibrand. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Blumenthal?
Senator Blumenthal. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Donnelly?
Senator Donnelly. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Hirono?
Senator Reed. Aye, by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
Senator Reed. Aye, by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. King?
Senator King. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Heinrich?
Senator Heinrich. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman McCain. Aye.
The Clerk. 25 ayes, 1 no instruction.
Chairman McCain. Then the motion will be reported favorably
of Dr. Carter's nomination to the Senate--to the floor of the
Senate, and hopefully, we can get a vote perhaps even as early
as tomorrow.
Senator Reed. Do you want to keep it open for Senator
Sullivan?
Chairman McCain. For who?
Senator Reed. Senator Sullivan.
Chairman McCain. No.
We will leave it open for Senator Sullivan to make his
wishes known for a while.
The Armed Services Committee meets today to receive
testimony on our Nation's defense budget and priorities from
the bipartisan National Defense Panel (NDP). This group of
former military leaders, Members of Congress, and Pentagon
officials who served under Republican and Democratic Presidents
released their unanimous recommendations in a report on our
Nation's defense strategy last year.
We have with us today two distinguished members of the NDP,
Eric Edelman and Michele Flournoy. Each served as Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy and are among the most
respected defense experts on both sides of the aisle. We are
grateful for you to appear before us today.
I would also like to thank the panel's co-chairmen, Dr.
William Perry and General John Abizaid, for their leadership,
as well as the panel's members and staff for their diligent
work.
The NDP's bipartisan and consensus report is a compelling
statement of the daunting strategic realities America faces in
the 21st century. The rules-based international order that has
furthered global prosperity and security is not self-
sustaining. As challenges to that order multiply around the
world, there is no substitute for robust American engagement to
ensure its preservation. Though America has many effective
tools of global influence, including diplomacy and economic
engagement, the panel reminds us that all of these are
critically intertwined with and dependent upon the perceived
strength, presence, and commitment of U.S. Armed Forces.
Yet through a combination of self-inflicted wounds and
dangerous geopolitical and technological trends, America's
military strength, ``the strategic foundation undergirding our
global leadership'' as the report terms it, is eroding.
$487 billion in cuts to our national defense under the
Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 and billions more under
sequestration constitute a serious strategic misstep, the
report warns. These steep cuts have sharply reduced military
readiness, led to dangerous investment shortfalls in present
and future capabilities, and prompted our allies and
adversaries alike to question our commitment and resolve.
These cuts are not the product of any strategic assessment
of the threats we face at a time of global upheaval. China's
rapid military modernization is tilting the balance of power in
the Asia-Pacific. Russia's aggression threatens Europe's
regional security. Iran and North Korea continue the pursuit
and development of tactical weapons, and violent Islamist
extremists are destabilizing large swaths of the Middle East
and North Africa while plotting attacks against the United
States and our allies.
In addition to regional threats, structural trends like the
diffusion of certain advanced military technologies pose new
operations challenges to America's Armed Forces. In the
security environment of the future, the panel's report
predicts, ``Conflicts are likely to unfold more rapidly.
Battlefields will be more lethal. Operational sanctuary for
U.S. forces will be scarce and often fleeting. Asymmetric
conflict will be the norm.''
The panel echoed Secretary of Defense, Charles T. Hagel,
who has said that in such an era, American dominance on the
seas and the skies and in space can no longer be taken for
granted.
The panel's report recommends the BCA's immediate repeal
and a return to at least the funding baseline proposed in
Secretary of Defense, Robert M. Gates' fiscal year 2012 defense
budget. That budget, the panel concluded, represents the last
time the Department was permitted to engage in the standard
process of analyzing threats, estimating needs, and proposing a
resource baseline that would permit it to carry out the
national military strategy.
If we had followed the budget path laid out by Secretary
Gates, which he believed was the minimum to keep the country
safe, the fiscal year 2016 budget for the Department of Defense
(DOD), excluding war funding, would be $611 billion. That is
$77 billion more than the President's fiscal year 2016 budget
request, and $112 billion more than the budget caps under the
BCA.
It is also worth remembering that Secretary Gates suggested
this minimum level before Russia's invasion of Ukraine posed a
renewed threat to European security, before the rise of the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) and the further
spread of violent extremism across North Africa and the Middle
East, before China's coercive behavior in the East and South
China Seas had become dangerously commonplace.
It is unacceptable to continue to ask the men and women of
our military to put their lives at risk around the world while
we cut back on their training and equipment to settle domestic
political scores. Therefore, the overriding priority of this
committee and Congress must be to return to a strategy-driven
budget. I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today
as to what budget would look like.
Senator Reed?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED
Senator Reed. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I also want to welcome our witnesses. Mr. Ambassador, Madam
Secretary, thank you for your service both in and out of
Government. Thank you very much.
Over the years, and especially since the initiation of
hostilities in 2001, the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), like
any strategy, has had to contend with the challenge of an
unpredictable and constantly shifting nature of the world and
threats that we face. As military leaders have pointed out, we
have seldom predicted with great accuracy where or when the
next crisis might occur.
However, DOD's requirement to conduct security and defense
analysis and planning means that assumptions must be made,
objective threat assessments done, and guidance provided to our
military leaders that prioritize our national security
interests. Each QDR, regardless of administration, has had to
make strategic or resource tradeoffs.
The work of the current NDP, in its review of the 2014 QDR,
provides an independent consideration of the department's
assessment of the security environment, its defense strategy
and priorities, and identification of the capabilities
necessary to manage our strategic risk.
In essence, the panel found that the 2014 QDR and defense
strategy makes a reasonable strategic assessment. For example,
the panel largely echoes the QDR's strategic assessment and
highlights the challenges the Nation faces, with emphasis on
China, Russia in Ukraine, proliferation in North Korea and
Iran, insurgency in Iraq, civil war in Syria, and instability
throughout the Middle East and Africa.
The panel also acknowledges that the QDR calls for the
right capabilities and capacities to address the many
challenges we face today and into the future. However, the
panel notes, those capabilities and capacities clearly exceed
the budget resources available and, therefore, undermines the
strategy. A point very accurately made by the chairman.
It is no surprise, therefore, that the panel's overarching
finding and recommendation is the BCA endangers the Nation's
security and calls for its repeal. The panel also argues for
increasing defense funding to 2012 levels, reining in personnel
costs, and more budget predictability. In addition to the risks
of sequestration, I would be interested to hear the witnesses'
assessment of other risks to our national security, as well as
well as risks to our military and their families.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I note that after nearly 20 years of
QDRs and recurring questions about its value, last year's
National Defense Authorization Act modified the requirements
for this periodic defense review, now called the Defense
Strategy Review. These changes include the development of a
national defense strategy that addresses our security interest
across the near, mid, and far terms, and focuses and
streamlines the elements of a strategy Congress considers
essential to a comprehensive defense review.
I would be interested to know the witnesses' views on these
changes and the prospects for a more timely, relevant, and
useful national defense strategy process.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Welcome to the witnesses. Secretary
Flournoy?
Ms. Flournoy. Sir, if I may, I am going to let Ambassador
Edelman go first.
STATEMENT OF HON. ERIC S. EDELMAN, PANELIST, NATIONAL DEFENSE
PANEL AND FORMER UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR POLICY
Ambassador Edelman. Mr. Chairman, Senator Reed, thank you
for giving my colleague, Secretary Flournoy, and me an
opportunity to come before you to talk about the work of the
NDP to review the QDR. The two of us have a prepared statement
that we have submitted and hope that it will be printed for the
record.
Chairman McCain. Without objection, they are both in the
record.
Ambassador Edelman. I will just make some general
introductory comments and then turn the floor over to Michele.
When we began our work as a panel in August 2013, one of
our co-chairmen, General John Abizaid, said that as we started
our deliberations that he believed the Nation was running what
he called accumulating strategic risk. I think all of the
members of the panel assented to that judgment at the time.
As you pointed out in your opening statement, Mr. Chairman,
that was before President Putin had invaded and annexed Crimea
and destabilized Eastern Ukraine, before the collapse of the
Iraqi security forces and the seizure of Mosul and Anbar
Province by ISIL and its approach to Baghdad. As we went
through our deliberations, I think the panel became more and
more convinced that the accumulating strategic risk that
General Abizaid was describing at our outset was accumulating
at a faster and faster pace.
As you have heard as a committee from previous witnesses at
other hearings--Secretary George P. Shultz, my former boss;
Secretary Henry A. Kissinger, and Secretary Madeleine K.
Albright--the United States probably faces the most volatile
and complex security environment that we have faced as a nation
in a very long time, if ever. It struck us as a panel that,
given those growing challenges, to stay on the path of the BCA
caps and sequestration made no sense.
I had the experience of having been on the previous
independent panel to review the 2010 QDR, and in that report
looking at the budget trajectory, the cuts that were already
being taken out of defense in 2010, the growing cost of keeping
service men and women in the field over time, and the growing
healthcare and other retirement costs that were built into the
budget, we predicted that the Nation was facing a train wreck
on defense. That was before the BCA passed and before the
department had to cope with sequestration.
One of the things that I think we were very focused on and
I want draw some attention to is the charge that Secretary
Hagel gave us as a panel at the outset of our deliberations. He
said that as we discussed future capabilities, because many of
these challenges that we as a panel were talking about--the
rise of China and its very rapid growth in military power, the
long struggle I think that we face with Islamic extremism, the
rise potentially of new nuclear powers like North Korea,
perhaps Iran--all of these things are challenges that, as
President Dwight D. Eisenhower said, were for the long haul. We
have to think now about how we are going to deal with these
challenges 20 years out. That, in fact, is also one of the
mandates of the QDR process itself. It is supposed to be a 20-
year-out look at the Nation's defense needs.
So, Secretary Hagel raised the issue with us, the concern
that is the program of record the program we are going to need
20 years down the road? Are we going to be starting now to
produce the weapons that 20 years from now we will be needing?
Many of us, I think, were mindful of the fact that over the
last decade we have been essentially eating the seed corn that
was laid down in the President James E. Carter and President
Ronald W. Reagan defense build-up of the late 1970s and early
1980s. So, we need to be thinking now of what capabilities we
can provide for service men and women who are going to be
called upon in the future.
So, I wanted to mention the specific areas that as a panel,
in keeping with Secretary Hagel's charge, that we concluded we
ought to be looking at down the road for the future. I hope,
Mr. Chairman and Senator Reed, that you and the members of the
committee will bearing some of those things in mind as you
consider the program and budget review over the next few years.
I will just tick them off. Armed intelligence surveillance
and reconnaissance. Space, because of our critical dependence
on it. Cyberspace. Maintenance of air superiority. Joint and
coalition command and control, because of the partnerships we
have and the fact we are going to be fighting with other
people. Long-range strike, and electric and directed-energy
weapons.
These are areas that we felt had not been given sufficient
attention by the department and need a further look in the
future.
Why don't I stop there, and I will be happy to turn it over
to Michele.
[The joint prepared statement of Ambassador Edelman and Ms.
Flournoy follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHELE A. FLOURNOY, PANELIST, NATIONAL
DEFENSE PANEL AND FORMER UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR POLICY
Ms. Flournoy. Mr. Chairman, Senator Reed, I would just like
to say how pleased and honored I am to join Ambassador Edelman
here today to discuss the findings and recommendations of the
NDP with you.
This hearing really could not come at a more critical time
for all the reasons you have described. The international
security environment is more complex and volatile than we have
seen, and I would emphasize it is only going to get more
challenging in the future.
It is a time when continued U.S. leadership and engagement
globally to protect our national interests, to sustain the
rules-based international order on which stability and
prosperity depend, to lead the international community to
address the most pressing challenges that you outline, U.S.
leadership could not be at more of a premium right now.
It is also a time that requires investment to ensure that
we retain a strong and agile military to shape the
international environment, to deter and defeat aggression when
we must, to reassure allies and partners, and to ensure that
this President and future Presidents have the options that they
need for an increasingly dangerous world. Yet, we see a period
where defense budget cuts and sequestration are undermining the
department's ability to maintain a robust and ready force, to
retain the best and brightest people, and to invest in the
capabilities that are going to be necessary to keep our
technological edge and our military superiority in a more
challenging future.
So, in this context, I just want to foot stomp and
emphasize four points.
First is, our number-one appeal to this committee and to
Congress more broadly is to work to repeal the BCA and end
sequestration. This is absolutely imperative. We cannot restore
readiness and invest in our technological edge unless we do so.
Sequestration not only sets budget levels too low, it also
denies the Secretary of Defense the ability to protect
resources for the highest priorities. It puts DOD in a constant
state of budget uncertainty that prevents more strategic
planning and investment for the future.
Deficit reduction and getting our fiscal house in order are
essential to U.S. national security. But sequestration is the
wrong way to go about it. So the NDP does recommend restoring
defense spending to fiscal year 2012 levels, as the chairman
mentioned, and funding the President's budget request is at
least a first step in that direction.
Second, we would urge Congress to take immediate steps to
restore readiness. The Service Chiefs have testified before
this committee as to growing readiness problems. Only half of
the Marine Corps home station units are at acceptable readiness
levels. Less than half of the combat-coded units in the Air
Force are fully ready for their missions. Navy deployments have
been cancelled, and only a third of the Navy's contingency
force is ready to deploy within the required 30 days.
The list goes on. These readiness impacts are real, and the
NDP recommended that Congress should make an immediate and
special appropriation above and beyond the current budget
levels and Overseas Contingency Operations to correct these
readiness shortfalls.
Third, as Ambassador Edelman emphasized, the NDP calls for
protecting investment in future capabilities that will be
critical to maintaining U.S. freedom of action and our military
superiority in the coming decades. Our technological edge has
long been an advantage, but it is not a given. In a world in
which technology is proliferating, much of cutting-edge
technology is commercial and off the shelf. DOD has to have a
smart and determined investment strategy to maintain its edge.
I would personally applaud the Department's efforts like
the offset strategy, the Defense Innovation Initiative, but we
have to have the investment dollars to pursue those
initiatives, and Ambassador Edelman has laid out a number of
the key areas that the NDP recommended should be a focus.
Lastly, I would add the NDP also argues that we need to
pursue an aggressive reform agenda inside DOD. We can and
should reduce the costs of doing business. We note compensation
reform and applauded the work of the Military Compensation and
Retirement Modernization Commission.
Many of these issues need to be addressed. Some of them
need to be fundamentally reframed, and I will give you an
example. Healthcare, for example, rather than debating whether
we should reduce benefits and increase co-pays, we need to be
debating how do we get better health outcomes for
servicemembers and their families and reduce costs by applying
better business practices.
The NDP emphasizes the need for further acquisition reform,
for another Defense Base Realignment and Closure round to take
down the 20 percent excess infrastructure that the DOD is
carrying, and to right-sizing the civilian workforce--
contractor, career, and so forth--so that we can have the
workforce we need for the future.
Let me just conclude by saying I think this report lays out
an agenda, a very clear agenda, for action that had strong
bipartisan and civil-military support across the panel.
Nevertheless, there are some heavy lifts involved in what we
recommend. But the risks of not pursuing this course are simply
unacceptable. So I would look to this committee and applaud
your leadership in this area, working with your colleagues to
try to convince them that the time to act on these
recommendations is now.
Thank you.
Joint Prepared Statement by Michele Flournoy and Eric Edelman
Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed, thank you for this
opportunity to appear before you and other members of this
distinguished committee to discuss the final report of the 2014
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) National Defense Panel.
The 2014 QDR National Defense Panel, which included two appointees
of the Secretary of Defense and eight appointees of Congress, and was
facilitated by the U.S. Institute of Peace, had been asked to submit a
written assessment of the QDR. We are here today as the designated
representative of the co-chairs, former Secretary of Defense William J.
Perry and General (Retired) John P Abizaid, to discuss with you the
Panel's report which was released on July 31, 2014.
Mr. Chairman, our panel observed recent events across the globe--
from the rise of the Islamic State, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, war
between Hamas and Israel, violent confrontations and air strikes in
Libya, and continued tensions on the Korean Peninsula and in the East
and South China seas--and was reminded that the United States faces
perhaps the most complex and volatile security environment since World
War II.
This realization has led to repeated calls for U.S. leadership to
sustain the rules-based international order that underpins U.S.
security and prosperity. But scant attention has been paid to ensuring
that we have a robust and ready military, able to deter would-be
aggressors, reassure allies and ensure that any president, current or
future, has the options he or she will need in an increasingly
dangerous world.
The National Defense Panel concluded in its recent report that the
Budget Control Act of 2011 was a ``serious strategic misstep'' that has
dangerously tied the hands of the Pentagon leadership, forcing across-
the-board ``sequestration'' cuts in defense spending and subjecting the
Nation to accumulating strategic risk. The commission's report
concluded that, without budgetary relief, the U.S. Armed Forces soon
will be at high risk of not being able to accomplish the national
defense strategy. The panel also believes if the United States returns
to sequestration-level cuts in fiscal year 2016, we will face
significant risks across the board, and may have to reassess our
defense strategy.
The provisions of the Budget Control Act and sequestration have
already precipitated a readiness crisis within our Armed Forces, with
only a handful of Army brigades ready for crisis response, Air Force
pilots unable to fly sufficient hours to keep up their skills and Navy
ships unable to provide critical U.S. security presence in key regions.
We also understand that the Department has reported that if
sequestration returns in fiscal year 2016, the Navy would be unable to
support its current force of 11 carriers. we note with grave concern
the statement Dr. Ashton Carter, the nominee for secretary of defense,
made at his hearing when he noted that sequestration threatens
Department of Defense modernization and that in turn would threaten our
Asia-Pacific rebalance strategy. Although last year's congressional
budget deal has granted some temporary relief, the return to
sequestration in fiscal year 2016 and beyond would result in a hollow
force reminiscent of the late 1970s.
The U.S. military is an indispensable instrument underpinning the
diplomatic, economic and intelligence elements of our national power:
It keeps key trade routes open, maintains stability in vital regions
such as the Persian Gulf and sustains alliances that serve U.S. and
global interests.
That's why the National Defense Panel urged--and we reiterate
today--that Congress and the President repeal the Budget Control Act
immediately, end the threat of sequestration and return, at a minimum,
to funding levels proposed by then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates in
his fiscal year 2012 budget. That budget called for modest nominal-
dollar increases in defense spending through the remainder of the
decade to stabilize the defense program.
The report argues that, to meet the increasing challenges of the
deteriorating international security environment, the U.S. military
must be able to deter or stop aggression in multiple theaters, not just
one, even when engaged in a large-scale war. This requires urgently
addressing the size and shape of our Armed Forces so they can protect
and advance our interests globally and provide the warfighting
capabilities necessary to underwrite the credibility of the United
States' leadership and national security strategy. But under
sequestration, our forces would have to accept a much higher level of
risk in order to implement our current strategies.
Whether confronting the threat of the Islamic State or reassuring
allies in Asia, the President must have options, and the Defense
Department needs the flexibility to provide the best alternatives that
secure our interests. In particular, the Pentagon needs relief from the
budget cuts of the past few years and from limitations on its authority
to make judicious cuts where they are most needed and least harmful to
our security. This would allow further savings through modest cuts to
the rate of growth in already generous military compensation and
benefits, further reforms in the acquisition of equipment and materiel,
elimination of an estimated 20 percent excess in military
infrastructure such as bases, and reductions in overhead and the
burgeoning civilian and contractor defense workforce.
These savings and additional budgetary resources must go toward
investment in critical capabilities, such as long-range strikes, armed
unmanned aviation, intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance,
undersea warfare, directed energy, cybersecurity, and others that will
safeguard our continued military superiority.
The threat of sequester was never meant to be carried out. It was
supposed to be a ``sword of Damocles'' ensuring that lawmakers would
reach an agreement on ways to cut the Federal deficit. Those efforts
failed, putting the defense budget on the chopping block and holding
our Nation's security hostage at a particularly dangerous moment in
world affairs. As we enter another presidential election cycle, our
Nation's leaders will need to examine
the National Defense Panel report and explain to voters how they
intend to address its recommendations. The stakes could not be higher.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today. We welcome your questions and input regarding the 2014
Quadrennial Defense Review National Defense Panel.
Chairman McCain. I thank both the witnesses, and I would
point out to my colleagues that both witnesses have worked for
both Republican and Democrat administrations, holding positions
of responsibility in both. So there certainly is a total
nonpartisanship in your reports, and that, in my view, makes
you even more credible because of your many years of
outstanding and dedicated service.
My colleagues, I won't take very much time except to point
out that one of the problems that we are trying to highlight on
this committee is, as you just mentioned, Ms. Flournoy, on
acquisition reform. We simply can't afford these cost overruns
of billions of dollars and cancelled and delayed programs.
It harms our credibility, and it is going to be one of the
highest priorities of this committee to try and address that
issue, and it has been tried many times in the past. So I am
not confident as to the degree of success, but we have to work
on it.
I only have one additional question. Why did you use
Secretary Gates' fiscal year 2012 budget levels as a baseline
for your recommendations?
Ambassador Edelman. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, in the
2010 NDP, we spoke to Secretary Gates about what he thought the
department needed to recapitalize after 10 years of war. He
told us that he believed he needed about 1.5 to 2.5 percent
real growth in the budget over the Future Years Defense Program
in order to do that.
I think the 2010 Panel believed that that was a minimum and
that it might actually be a higher number. But when we met as a
panel and tried to wrestle with this--and we had a smaller
panel this time, only 10 members and limited staff--we
concluded that recurring to Secretary Gates' top line made
sense because it was really the last time the department had
been trying to define its needs on the basis of something
approaching a strategy, as opposed to being given arbitrary
numbers by either the DOD Office of Management and Budget or
because of the BCA caps.
So there were differences of view, I think, among us on the
panel as to what, how high the top line ought to go. But I
think there was consensus that the Gates level, that sort of
1.5, 2.5 percent real growth from the fiscal year 2011 and
fiscal year 2012 levels, was the minimum, and all of us could
agree on that.
Chairman McCain. Unless we do something such as you are
recommending, the Nation's security is at risk.
Ambassador Edelman. I would say so, and I think--I think
all the members of the panel believed that.
Ms. Flournoy. Yes, sir, I think we talked about the force
being at substantial risk in the near term if sequestration was
not lifted and higher budget levels not restored.
Chairman McCain. Thank you.
Senator Reed?
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Ambassador and Madam Secretary, for your
thoughtful testimony today and also for the work of your
colleagues on this report.
You were obviously tasked with focusing on the needs and
responsibilities of DOD, but one of the realities I think we
all recognize is that military forces don't operate alone, and
they are a part of a spectrum of national security efforts. If
there is not a sufficient State Department presence and
capacity building in local communities, then our military
efforts could dissipate quickly when we change or shift
responsibility.
So can I assume, or I won't assume, but I will just ask,
when we talk about repealing the BCA, we also have to be
conscious of the State Department, Homeland Security
Department, every agency of the Government that essentially
protects the security of the United States and could even go
further than that.
Is that fair, Mr. Ambassador?
Ambassador Edelman. Senator Reed, I think that is certainly
fair. Although we in our panel really were more focused on the
department specifically, in the 2010 Panel, we actually had a
chapter about the need for a better whole-of-government effort,
really very much along the lines you are discussing.
Because you are right, just solving DOD's problem is
crucial and, I would say, a necessary condition for almost
everything else. But it is not sufficient because we have other
instruments of national power that we don't want to see
withering on the vine without adequate funding.
Senator Reed. Madam Secretary, your comment?
Ms. Flournoy. I would agree. In just about every operation
we conduct, every problem we try to solve, there has to be an
integrated, balanced interagency approach. When one instrument
is well funded and the others are on life support, that doesn't
work so well. So I think our intention was to talk about the
instruments of national security more broadly.
Senator Reed. Let me shift to another topic that you talked
about in your report, which is increasingly critical. That is
cyber operations. It just, from afar, looking at some of the
recent operations of the Russians in the Crimea, et cetera,
that cyber seems to be the first act of any sort of military
operation today. The line between a cyber incident and a
military operation is getting less and less distinct.
Your comments generally about the efforts we should
undertake with respect to cyber through the DOD and others?
Again, this touches the whole spectrum. Everything is cyber
these days.
Ambassador Edelman. Senator Reed, I am at something of a
disadvantage because I have trouble booting up my own computer,
and I am like many people of my age, very reliant on my younger
sons to get me out of trouble.
Senator Reed. Or grandkids.
Ambassador Edelman. But the reality is we rely, our
military forces rely, extensively on cyber and not only
encrypted systems, but on the open Net. That is a huge problem
for us whenever we are involved in an operation of any kind,
and I think we are all painfully aware of the vulnerabilities
that we face. We do cite cyber as one of the capabilities that
needs further attention and a lot more work.
But you have put your finger on one problem that I don't
think we have completely resolved as a government. My colleague
may have more recent experience with this. But as I said, DOD
relies on the open Internet, and yet it doesn't really have the
responsibility for defending it. It has the responsibility for
defending dot-mil. So, we really have to--this is one area
where the whole of government has to be involved, particularly
for DOD.
Senator Reed. Madam Secretary?
Ms. Flournoy. I would just add I think it is a very
important area of emphasis, and there are many dimensions to
the challenge. One is building the human capital and the
expertise that is needed within the Government, and access to
it outside of Government. Figuring out how we are going to
organize ourselves beyond DOD, across the whole of government,
given that different agencies have different authorities and
areas of expertise.
How we are going to work with the private sector, which now
holds so much of our critical infrastructure. Frankly, the
legislative framework that deals with questions of liability
and otherwise that would enable the kind of public-private
cooperation that is needed to be effective in this area.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much. Thank you for your great
work.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Senator Inhofe?
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador, when you are my age, you will be depending on
your grandchildren's advice, not just your children's.
In the 20 years that I have been on this committee, we have
talked about our--and you and I have talked about this, too,
about the fact that we have the oldest nuclear arsenal in the
world, that most of our warheads are 30, 40 years old, and our
delivery systems, if you look at the Triad, you are looking at
the B-52, maybe 50 years old. Then, of course, the
intercontinental ballistic missiles and the nuclear submarines.
Now we have talked about this for a long period of time,
and I am looking now at the new situation, the new threat that
is out there, the new threat that you have talked about, both
of you, as well as our panel that we had last week that talked
about this for quite some time--Kissinger, Albright, and
Shultz. Now in light of the new threat, should more attention
be given to this than we have in the past?
I notice when you used the word, you ticked off five of the
areas that have not been given proper attention. This wasn't
one of those areas. Well, do you think it should be?
Ambassador Edelman. Senator, as Under Secretary, I was a
member of the Nuclear Weapons Council and followed the issues
closely and was very, very concerned throughout my tenure about
the state of our aging nuclear force. We haven't built a new
nuclear weapon since 1988. We haven't tested one since 1991.
There are lots of ways that we maintain the safety and
surety of the stockpile. But as time goes on, and particularly
not only as the inevitable corrosion and degradation of
components goes on, but also the loss of human capital, because
we are not able to get the best and brightest minds in the
field the way we used to be able to do, I think it is a matter
of really increasing concern.
We are unfortunately, I think, living through a period
where the risks of an increasingly proliferated world are
growing. We already have North Korea testing, having tested
nuclear weapons. Iran is moving very close to being a nuclear
threshold state. Hopefully, there will be an agreement that
will constrain that. But if there isn't or if Iran maintains a
near-breakout capacity, there is a real prospect that we may
get other states in the region who decide to develop their own
nuclear capabilities.
In the meantime, you have growing nuclear stockpiles in
Pakistan and India. China's--the Chinese inventory is also
growing in terms of weapons, although albeit more slowly.
Russia is modernizing its nuclear force.
I do worry. I think I applaud the administration for the
very good work it has done and the B-61 modernization effort.
But I do think there is much more that needs to be done in this
area.
Senator Inhofe. Well, Ambassador, that gets into what I was
going to talk about because I have been concerned about Iran
for ever since our unclassified intelligence came out in 2007
talking about when they were going to have the capabilities,
being 2015, which is where we are right now.
I am concerned about the maligned activities. There have
been several published reports talking about Sudan--this is all
coming from Iran--Sudan, Gaza, Yemen, Bahrain, Iraq, Syria, and
Lebanon. I don't think we can assume that our concern should be
strictly with Iran. This is my concern that I have had for a
long time.
We are supposed to be, and historically have been, the
nuclear umbrella. Our umbrella has holes in it. We have serious
problems.
When you look at countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey and
others, if they see what our capabilities aren't, then you
know, or I would assume, they are going to be involved and we
are going to have another arms race coming up. Does that
concern the two of you?
Ambassador Edelman. I think our strategic nuclear forces
have been one of our huge strategic comparative advantages as a
nation since 1945.
Senator Inhofe. Yes.
Ambassador Edelman. I think we cannot afford to let that
advantage go by the wayside. Extended deterrence of our allies
in Asia, in Europe, and now increasingly in the Middle East has
always been a very difficult proposition. It was a difficult
proposition when we had a much larger stockpile and inventory
of nuclear weapons to make our willingness to use those weapons
in defense of our allies. That was a very difficult proposition
to convince people of.
It is still going to be a difficult proposition to convince
people about. But it will be much harder to do, as you say,
Senator Inhofe, if the appearance is that we are not paying
sufficient attention to the stockpile and to the modernization
of our forces.
Senator Inhofe. All right. Well, thank you.
My time is expired, but just as I did for the panel of
Kissinger, Albright, and Shultz, I would like to have you
submit, for the record, something talking about the fact that
for the 20 years that we were--I was involved with this
committee, before we had the policy of being able to fight two
wars or two major theater conflicts, and that policy seemingly
changing now, and your analysis of the new policy for the
record.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information referred to follows:]
Ambassador Edelman did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
Chairman McCain. Senator Sullivan, do you wish to be
recorded as voting aye for Ash Carter to be Secretary of
Defense?
Senator Sullivan. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Great. Senator Gillibrand?
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Senator Reed.
Thank you for your testimony today. It is very instructive
and something that obviously this committee is really focused
on.
I want to continue the conversation about your
recommendations with regard to cyber. Obviously, the 2014 QDR
reports that cyber threats come from a diverse range of
countries, organizations, individuals and are posing
significant risks to U.S. national interests. Some threats seek
to undercut DOD's near- and long-term military effectiveness by
gaining unauthorized access to the DOD and industry networks
and infrastructure on a routine basis.
Further, our potential adversaries are actively probing
critical infrastructure, whether they are chemical plants,
nuclear plants, stock exchanges, any type of important
infrastructure, and our partner countries, which could inflict
significant damage to the global economy as well as exacerbate
instability in the security environment.
What are your specific recommendations with regard to
increasing cyber capability, and specifically, how do we
compete with the private sector to get the brightest minds, the
best engineers, the best mathematicians to want to serve as
cyber warriors to enhance our cyber defense?
Have you thought about ways to not only recruit and retain
the best and brightest in these fields, but also to perhaps
develop resources throughout National Guard and other sources?
Ms. Flournoy. As a panel, Senator, we did not go into that
level of detail. We noted the importance of this area, the
importance of investing in both defensive and offensive
capabilities. Urged the department to move forward with
modernization and improving cooperation with the private
sector. So I will give you my personal views on your question.
I think attracting talent is one of the biggest challenges, and
there are a couple of ways to go at it.
One is to use different incentives and pay schedules for
cyber experts than the normal GS kind of schedule.
A second is to develop contract relationships and surge
capacity with the private sector.
A third is, as you mentioned, actually leveraging some of
the strength of our Guard and Reserves. There are a lot of
these folks who have this expertise out in the commercial
sector who are patriots and who might want to contribute to our
national defense, but they are not going to leave Silicon
Valley to join full time. So finding a way to leverage them on
the weekends and for their annual training and to be available
to be mobilized in a national emergency, I think we need to be
thinking creatively about those kinds of arrangements.
A couple of the Services have some pilot programs that you
may be aware of, experimenting with exactly that construct. But
the human capital dimension is probably the long pole in the
tent here.
Ambassador Edelman. Senator Gillibrand, the only thing that
I would to add to that, I am aware of some efforts in the
private sector to do something which I think is in this context
a terrific idea, which is to help train some of our wounded
warriors to become cyber warriors. There are a lot of our
wounded warriors who would love to get back into the field, but
because of their injuries cannot. But this is a way for them to
continue the fight with a little bit of training.
Senator Gillibrand. Well, would you recommend, for example,
our cyber defenders or our cyber fighters to not have the same
basic training? Meaning, you might be the best person behind a
computer, but you are not the best guy behind a gun, and so
train specifically for their requirements. But that would be
the first for the military. They have not done that previously.
Ms. Flournoy. My understanding is that at least one of the
pilots that is using a Reserve unit, one of the things they
have done is exempt people from the physical training
requirements, from cutting their hair, wearing uniforms. But
really let them come as they are, bring their expertise to the
table without having to meet the traditional requirements.
Senator Gillibrand. Then, in your opening remarks,
Ambassador, you mentioned five various technology areas where
you felt we need to develop more weapons expertise. Does your
report expand on that, or do you just list them?
Ambassador Edelman. We don't go into great detail, Senator
Gillibrand, about them. We basically highlight them as areas
where we clearly think there needs to be more attention, and
there hasn't been sufficient attention. Directed-energy weapons
for one. But as you said, there is a list of them. We give them
about a paragraph treatment in each one, not in any detail.
Senator Gillibrand. Well, I would love for the record
further development to the extent you have it.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information referred to follows:]
Ambassador Edelman did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
Chairman McCain. Senator Sessions?
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank both of you for your leadership and your wisdom that
you are sharing with us.
We do have a problem with defense spending. It is causing
me great concern as a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on
Budget for a couple of years. I have been digging into those
numbers, and I have felt all along that the one area of our
budget that needs to be examined with most care for spending
more money is the Defense Department. So, we have to justify
that. The Defense Department has to tell us what they are going
to spend the money on and how much it is.
But we don't have a lot of money. Matter of fact, we don't
have enough money to run this government, and the deficits will
continue to rise even though we have had a slowing on the
annual deficits. They are going to start rising again,
according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and they
project that by 2019, interest on the debt will exceed the
entire defense budget. So this is a grim thing.
Ambassador Edelman, do you think--you have suggested that
the Defense Department needs more money, do you think that
increase above the BCA totals should be matched by the same
increases of non-defense discretionary spending?
Ambassador Edelman. The panel did not take a position on
that. So just as I represent the panel, I want to make sure it
is clear that what I am about to say is my personal opinion and
not representing, I suspect, either my colleague or other
members of the panel.
I think the issue in defense is absolutely crucial. I
think, overall, Federal spending needs to be under better
control. I think the biggest problem, though, is frankly not
the discretionary part of the budget. It is the
nondiscretionary part.
The CBO long-range budget forecasts have made that clear
for some time. That is the real driver of the long-term debt,
three programs. Those have to be taken off.
Senator Sessions. Well, so is your answer yes or no?
Ambassador Edelman. My answer is that the defense budget
needs to go up, and I don't think necessarily
nondiscretionary--or rather, discretionary, non-defense
spending needs to go up.
Senator Sessions. Well, look. The President is insisting
that it does. His budget increases defense about $34 billion
this year over the BCA level, and he increased his non-defense
discretionary by the same.
Senator McCain, I think, was correct to suggest that the
Gates plan would add, if it were enacted in 2012 and we were
following it, it would be a $100 billion more this year than
the BCA levels. Well, $100 billion more for defense over a
decade is more than $1 trillion. Non-defense, if it is matched,
that is another trillion dollars. The budget of the United
States is $4 trillion.
So these are huge numbers, and all of us, you don't have
the stress every day that we do about every other agency and
department that comes to us and wants more money. I am just
saying that is the difficult time we are in.
Ms. Flournoy. Senator, may I just add one thought on this?
Senator Sessions. Yes.
Ms. Flournoy. I think that sequestration needs to be lifted
across the board so that Secretaries are able to manage to the
priorities for the Government. But I don't think you can solve
the Nation's budget problems on the back of discretionary
spending. The big moving muscles are tax reform and entitlement
reform. So, that is where I think we need to focus.
Senator Sessions. Well, under the BCA, beginning 2017, for
the rest of, what, 7 years of the BCA, spending would increase
at 2.5 percent a year. So it is not--these are the tough years.
We are in the tough years right now. In fact, the Defense
Department took a heavy, damaging demand to reduce spending so
rapidly.
I thoroughly understand how hard they have had to work and
the difficulties they are working with right now. But I don't
know that we have to have these kind of increases in non-
defense discretionary. It shows up, yes, the fastest-growing
part of the budget is entitlements, and we all know that. But
we can also make a difference with discretionary spending.
Ambassador Edelman, you have questioned, I think, the
negotiations with Iran and the nuclear program they have. Dr.
Henry Kissinger was pretty animated, really, when he expressed
concern over our negotiating posture that basically allows
Iran, as he understands it and public reports suggest, could be
within months of having a nuclear weapon.
Our goal has gone from no nuclear program in Iran to
allowing a nuclear program that would leave them within months
of a nuclear weapon, causing, he says--Dr. Kissinger--other
nations in the world and the region, like other nations, to
plan to have nuclear weapons. How do you evaluate that?
Ambassador Edelman. Senator, I am a little concerned about
the trajectory of these negotiations.
When you look at the full sweep of them going back to 2003,
2004, when it began as the European Union plus three before it
became the sort of the P5+1, we started with what was
essentially a multilateral negotiation with the objective of
preventing Iran from developing a nuclear capability.
We now increasingly are in a bilateral negotiation between
the United States and Iran that is aimed, as Secretary of State
John F. Kerry has said, to limit the breakout or sneak-out time
that Iran has to develop a nuclear weapon to 1 year. That seems
to me to be an enormous retreat.
I don't know exactly what the state of the negotiation is.
The press reports indicating that Iran might be allowed to keep
thousands and thousands of centrifuges without taking them down
is very, very concerning to me because I think because there is
a time limit in the negotiation. That was agreed to in the
joint plan of action. It will be time limited, whatever that
date is, whether it is 20 years or 3 years or 10 years.
At some point, that time limit runs out. All the sanctions
are gone. Iran is treated as a ``normal nation'' under the
treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT),
despite its serial prevarication and violations of the NPT, and
then they have an industrial-scale enrichment capability, which
I think leaves them as a kind of threshold nuclear state. So I
am very concerned about the way the negotiations have
proceeded.
Chairman McCain. Senator Manchin?
Senator Manchin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank both of our witnesses for their testimony
before our committee today, and also your outstanding services,
and the success you have had and the careers you have had with
our Government.
In your opening statement, you both discussed the problems
that sequestration is causing the Department. We have talked
about that, and I am concerned the Department is not doing
enough to streamline and reduce costs. That has been my
concern.
In your panel's review of the 2014 QDR, you noted that
additional changes are required to right-size the civilian
Defense Department and Federal contracting workforces. The
panel cited that Pentagon civilians continue to grow, even
after, even after our Active-Duty Forces had been shrinking.
Additionally, the panel noted that by 2012 the number of
contractors working for the DOD had grown to approximately
670,000.
At a time when the Services have dramatically reduced the
number of servicemembers in the military, I have a hard time
with the growth of staff sizes, and I think you mentioned, Ms.
Flournoy, the staff sizes. For example, just at the Army,
headquarters staff grew by 60 percent to 3,639 in fiscal year
2013 from 2,272 just 10 years earlier. That doesn't even
include the contractors.
Because of that, I was shocked, but perhaps not surprised,
when the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently
reported that the DOD had yet to produce a realistic plan to
meet Secretary Hagel's 2013 goal of reducing DOD headquarters
budgets by 20 percent through fiscal year 2019. Can't even come
to an agreement on that.
Additionally, the GAO found that the DOD headquarters they
interviewed cannot determine how many people they actually
needed. Couldn't even tell you what they needed and what
positions they would have and what they would do.
Senators before this committee have heard time and again
about the need to fully fund servicemembers in the field, and
we are very concerned about that readiness of force. But when
you have a bloat on the other side that is taking away from the
readiness force, you are not utilizing the National Guard, you
are basically not utilizing your reservists to the point that
any sensible person would say, I have people ready, willing,
and able to do the job, but yet I am hiring all these high-
priced contractors.
There is no auditing going on. We don't really know where
we stand. We can't get weapons to the front in time. We have
concerns, and if either one of you want to address any of that
to whatever specifics, I would appreciate it.
But it is a challenging thing to say, and I think all the
Senators have touched on this, ``We need more money. We need
more money.'' We understand that. What are you doing with the
money we give you?
Why are you throwing money away from the standpoint, or the
appearance of it, spending it on needless stuff, when we want
to make sure our readiness force is ready to do? They have the
weapons, they can do the job for us.
Ms. Flournoy. Senator, I think this is a really important
area of focus.
It is understandable at one level why the civilian
workforce, the contract workforce grew over 15 years of war.
But now I think it is time to sort of go back to first
principles and try to right-size that force, examining exactly
how contractors are being used, looking for efficiencies there,
and really looking at the civilian organization. There is no
overall plan, but there are some components that are taking
some interesting approaches that may lead the way for others.
There are some that are looking at the concept of
delayering, of reducing the number of layers and optimizing
spans of control to take fat out of organizations. There are
others who are looking at streamlining business processes, and
so forth. So I think this is an area of focus.
One of the things I would highlight for you, although, is
that currently the Secretary of Defense does not have the kind
of authorities that his predecessors have used to manage
drawdowns in this area. Secretary of Defense William J. Perry,
for example, at the end of the Cold War, was given reduction-
in-force authority to right-size the civilian workforce. He was
given meaningful levels of voluntary separation incentive pays
that can be used to incentivize early retirement.
The current Secretary does not have those authorities, and
that is very much a constraint on----
Senator Manchin. So, legislative?
Ms. Flournoy. Yes, it is an opportunity for you to give the
Secretary some additional tools to right-size that civilian
workforce.
Senator Manchin. Let me ask you this. Does it not bother
you that DOD can't even identify the types of jobs and the
people they need for those jobs? Who reviews that? Who reviews
that?
Ms. Flournoy. Yes. I think that is something that you need
to ask of them and that we all need to ask of them.
Senator Manchin. Ambassador?
Ambassador Edelman. Senator Manchin, if I could just make a
point to respond to I think the excellent question you have
asked, but also the earlier question that Senator Sessions
posed to us, which is we are coming here saying that DOD needs
a lot of money, but everybody can cite horror stories about
different procurements that have gone bad, different problems
in DOD. You all, as stewards of the taxpayers' money, are right
to be asking the department how to justify all this.
One of the things we do talk about in the report, and which
my colleague has been very active, far more than I have, is on
the entire reform agenda. There has just been a report by the
Defense Business Board about trying to reap even more savings
out of the department. This is a priority area, and I hope the
chairman and the rest of you will have the Defense Business
Board up and talk about that report and try and push the
department and Secretary Carter, once he has gone to the floor
and been confirmed, as well on all of these things. I know he
has them very much on his mind from his previous service.
Senator Manchin. Thank you very much. My time is up.
Chairman McCain. Senator Ernst?
Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Flournoy and Ambassador Edelman, for being
here today. I appreciate it very much.
Ambassador, I appreciated when you said that we have been
eating the seed corn. That comes home for me. But I truly do
believe we have been degrading the very source of any future
strength and readiness and prosperity that we have.
I do agree, Ms. Flournoy, you stated that we do need to end
sequestration. I believe that. We do have to restore readiness
and also aggressive reform within the DOD. We have to do that.
I understand that.
But another component beyond looking internally, we have to
look externally also. Anytime that the United States is
engaging their military forces elsewhere, we do rely on other
partners. I believe we do need to engage other partners in
whatever region we are operating in to the fullest extent that
we possibly can.
Over the last 12 years, military cooperation between the
United States and Turkey has faltered. I can give specific
examples at critical moments. Back in 2003, my own unit, the
1168th Transportation Company, the 4th Infantry Division, and
many other units were denied access to Turkey as a projection
platform into Iraq. So that is one example. We couldn't use
their Turkish ports for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Then just a few months ago, we saw Turkey deny our Kurdish
allies from heading into Syria to break ISIL's siege of Kobane.
I believe that led to many deaths for those that were trying to
defend Kobane very early on when we were very uncertain whether
Kobane was going to fall or not.
Then Turkey has also continuously denied our country the
use of an air base, which would be close to use for search and
rescue missions for those that might have issues if they fall
behind enemy lines. Just recently, we saw a Wall Street
Journal, too, that went into further detail how Turkey had
denied us using their areas for Osprey, which could be used in
those search and rescue missions and providing cover for men
and women on the ground.
So time and time and time again, Turkey has denied use of
their facilities, denied use of their grounds. They are a North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) ally. A NATO ally, and they
are very unapologetic when it comes to denying the resources we
believe is necessary in their region.
So what I would like to hear from you is that as we are
looking at constrained budgets here, lack of resources, and of
course the reduced readiness, we really do need to engage our
other partners, specifically Turkey. In your opinion, what
impact has Turkey's actions or, in this case, lack of action,
how has that affected other coalition partnership in that
region, and what can we do to encourage Turkey to take on more
ownership of the issues in the Middle East?
Ambassador Edelman. Senator Ernst, much as I would like to
turn that question over to my colleague, I think as a former
U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, I think I probably need to take it
on.
First of all, all the things that you cited are painfully
part of my past experience. There is just no question that
Turkey under Prime Minister and now President Erdogan has
become a very problematic and difficult ally. There are a lot
of reasons for that.
I think Turkey is headed domestically on a very, very
dangerous trajectory of increasing authoritarianism and a lot
of degradation of democratic practice in Turkey, which I think
contributes to some of this. I think it is going to require a
lot of attention from senior U.S. leadership in the next few
years to try and manage that relationship because I agree with
you, we need partners when we operate overseas.
Now I will say in fairness to the Turks, a lot of their
anger and unhappiness and some of the reason that they have
denied us access is because their view of what is going on in
Syria, with which they share a very long border, is that
President Bashar al-Assad must go and that the United States is
not doing enough to try and promote the departure of President
Assad. It is their belief, and I think there is some merit in
it, that you cannot just take on the problem in Syria by only
taking on ISIL. Because as long as Assad is there, he is
generating more recruitment and more support for ISIL with his
assault on the Syrian people, use of barrel bombs, chlorine, et
cetera.
I think that is a very large part of the Turkish
frustration that has led them to deny us use of Incirlik, to
not cooperate with us on combat search and rescue, and things
like that. I am not saying that is an excuse, by the way.
Because I think allies have disagreements, they don't then say
we are not going to help you rescue your downed pilots. So I
think that is not an excuse for Turkey's behavior in this
instance, but just an explanation.
The broader point, though, on allies and partnerships that
I think we have to wrestle with is we are at a junction because
of where we are in our own budget and because the international
order is fraying so badly, where we need our allies, our treaty
allies in Asia and in Europe, but also our partners who are
parts of special relationships, who may not be formally allies
but clearly are partnered with us in various efforts in the
Middle East, like Israel, like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,
United Arab Emirates, et cetera.
In most cases, however, our allies are spending less and
less and less on defense themselves, and so they have less and
less capability for us to draw on. That is a sort of paradox.
I think one--I mean, it is a little bit beyond the work of
our panel, but I do think one of the things we need to think
about more is actually being much more forthright with our
allies about where we want them to spend their money on defense
and developing capabilities that will complement, supplement
ours, replace areas where we may have less capabilities, so
that there is a better division of labor between us and our
allies. I think that is true in both Europe and in East Asia,
as you see defense-spending declining in most of those
countries. We need to do that so that we don't have them
wasting money and not being able to be there when we need them.
Chairman McCain. Senator Donnelly?
Senator Donnelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you both for being here.
When you look at Syria and you look at ISIS, what would be
your recommendation as to the next step for the coalition to
take to move ISIS out of Syria?
We are making progress in Iraq. Do you wait in Syria until
Iraq is done, or do you begin to take action right now to move
them out, and does that action also include Assad?
Ambassador Edelman. I can answer that. This is again
something that the panel, Senator Donnelly, did not look at.
Senator Donnelly. I understand. But this is also about
global strategy and national security.
Ambassador Edelman. Right. So, I am just--yes. No, I just
want to make it clear that this is my personal opinion.
Senator Donnelly. That is all I am asking.
Ambassador Edelman. It doesn't reflect the other members of
the panel.
Senator Donnelly. We have your presence here. I want to
take advantage of it.
Ambassador Edelman. My own view is we should have been
doing much more, much earlier. Again, the President has said
long ago Assad must go. I agree with that. I don't think that
there is any way this problem can be resolved as long as Assad
is there.
Senator Donnelly. What do you think we do now, moving
forward?
Ambassador Edelman. I think we need--the problem in Syria
is we are relying almost totally on air power. We have not very
good intelligence because we have no presence on the ground. We
have to find some kind of surrogate, as the Peshmerga have been
to some degree in Iraq and, unfortunately, sometimes Shia
militias in Iraq. We have to find a surrogate on the ground in
Syria with whom we can work. That, I think, goes to the issue
of arming of the moderate Syrian opposition and getting them
into a position where they can actually do something.
We would have been much better off had we been doing this
going back to 2011, rather than having to face this problem
now. Bad news never gets better, in my experience.
Senator Donnelly. Ms. Flournoy?
Ms. Flournoy. I would agree that we--I wish we would have
begun arming of the moderate opposition when they were far
stronger and in greater numbers a while back. But we are where
we are, and I think building up a credible surrogate force is
key.
I think the air campaign could be used in a more robust
manner to put more pressure on ISIL and in some areas on the
regime. I mean, the key is, eventually, you have to put
pressure on the Assad regime if you expect them to come to the
table.
If we were to do that and bring it to a culmination point
right now, unfortunately, the main benefactor in Syria would be
ISIL because they are the strongest force on the ground. So we
have to focus on building up alternatives to ISIL and more
moderate surrogates before we get to that point.
Senator Donnelly. Let me ask you another question that is
more about national security strategy, global strategy. That is
Vladimir Putin. What do you think his endgame is? If you can go
one after the other, and where his plan ends here?
Ambassador Edelman. I don't think that President Putin is
solely interested in the Donbass in Ukraine. I think he has a
broader agenda. I think his agenda is first to destabilize
Ukraine to the point that he can impose regime change in Kiev
and dominate Ukraine and prevent it from associating itself
with the European Union and moving in the direction of the
West.
I think he fundamentally rejects the post-Cold War security
order in Europe, and I think it has taken a while for a lot of
our friends in Europe to recognize this. I think some of them
are still in a bit of denial about it. They still seem to hope
that there is some way to negotiate a limit with him on
Ukraine.
But I think this is just the beginning. I think after
Ukraine, he is going to--he is going to be pursuing this in
Moldova, and I think we are likely to see efforts to create
problems and drive wedges between the United States and its
allies, and particularly its Baltic allies.
Senator Donnelly. Would you agree that if NATO doesn't live
up to its obligations in Latvia, that would be the end of NATO?
Ambassador Edelman. Absolutely.
Senator Donnelly. Ms. Flournoy?
Ms. Flournoy. Yes, I don't disagree with anything that
Ambassador Edelman said. But my sense is that Putin may not
have a clear strategic endgame. He is a very tactical thinker,
and he is sitting on top of a former great power that is
unquestionably in decline demographically, economically,
plagued by corruption, poor governance. But that doesn't make
it any less dangerous, because I think he will lash out along
the way, trying to reestablish his sphere of influence.
Senator Donnelly. Do you think he takes a chance wherever
he sees a weakness?
Ms. Flournoy. I do. I think that is why it is so important
that we follow through on the reassurance initiatives for NATO,
on our posture, bolstering our posture, underwriting Article 5
[of the Washington Treaty]. My own belief is that we should be
doing more to help the Ukrainians defend themselves.
Senator Donnelly. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Senator Sullivan?
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I want to thank the panelists. Appreciate your great
service to our country, and the joint statement, it is very
helpful when we get those kind of joint statements.
We have been discussing a lot of the challenges, certainly,
that we have as a country in terms of national security. We
also have a lot of strengths. To me, the ultimate strength that
we have is the men and women in uniform who continue to
volunteer, raise their right hand, post-September 11 so they
know what the risks are, to serve our country.
I have had the great honor, I get to spend a lot of time
with our troops. I am sure that was a great part of both of
your jobs. Just in the last 2 weekends, I was at the National
Training Center a couple of weekends ago with thousands of
young Alaskan soldiers training out there. This past weekend, I
was with a smaller group of Air Naval, Gunfire Liaison Company
marines, reservists, and this time with the troops for me
raises a very interesting question I would like the two of you
to maybe comment on.
What we hear from our civilian leaders a lot, President
included, is that we consistently hear that we are a war-weary
nation. There is a subtle element to that, I think, that it
kind of is used as an excuse in some ways that we are not going
to be taking any kind of action because we are weary.
But when you spend time with the troops, and they have
sacrificed a lot in the last 12 years, we all know that. But
one of the concerns that they raised, at least with me--and
these are just anecdotal, but I am throwing them out there--is
they want to deploy. They joined the military to serve their
country. They don't want to be sitting around.
So I want you to help us think through this conventional
wisdom that somehow we are a war-weary nation. We can't take on
global commitments. When the truth is that less than 1 percent
of Americans have actually been doing the fighting, and the
ones that I am associated with certainly seem to be ready, not
necessarily to fight, but certainly be ready to deploy.
How can we think through that? Because I think it is this
issue that we are weary has become conventional wisdom in such
a way that nobody seems to challenge it. When you talk to the
people who are actually really at the pointy tip of the spear,
God love them, they seem ready to go.
Ms. Flournoy. First of all, Senator, it is a great
question, and I would agree that our men and women in uniform
are one of the greatest strengths we have as a nation. They are
remarkable.
I think that when the American people--when it is explained
to the American people what the nature of a threat is, why we
have to meet it, what it means for the Nation, what are the
risks of not going after it, as the President did recently with
regard to ISIL, I think the American people rally, and they may
shed whatever weariness they have and support a cause when it
is well articulated and explained, and the sacrifice or the
risk seems commensurate with the importance of the interest.
So, I don't think we are generally war weary. I think, yes,
we have spent--had a lot of blood and treasure that we have
spent over the last 15 years. But when I think when--and that
is something that weighs heavily on everyone, as it should.
But I think, again, when the interests are clear, the
objectives are clear, the mission is clear, and it is well
explained and people are mobilized, I think they are very
willing to follow that strong instinct that you described in
the troops of we have a mission, and we need to get it done.
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
Ms. Flournoy. So I think that is the challenge for everyone
who is in a leadership--public leadership position to be making
that case when it is necessary.
Senator Sullivan. Ambassador?
Ambassador Edelman. General George C. Marshall, I think,
once said that he thought it was difficult, if not impossible,
for the United States to fight a war for more than 4 years.
I think what that reflects is that Americans tend to want
to see--they tend to want to see a decisive outcome to a
conflict. I think inconclusive wars and long, difficult fights
sometimes can be a bit exhausting to the public, and
particularly if, as my colleague suggested, they are not being
explained properly to the American public.
I agree with everything you said, Senator Sullivan, about
being credible, the comparative advantage with have with our
people. It was always incredibly inspiring to go to either Iraq
or Afghanistan and see our young folks out there. They are
truly incredible and doing incredible things.
I would frequently, when I talked to folks, particularly
enlisted, and say do you think people out here--do you think
people back home know what you are doing out here? The answer I
used to get was, no, they think all we do is step on improvised
explosive devices out here. They have no clue what we are
doing.
So I do think it is important to explain exactly what the
stakes are, as my colleague just said. I would also note one
other thing. Americans are war weary until they are not.
If you look at the poll data about how the public felt
after the videotapes of the beheadings this summer came out, it
was a very different set of numbers than what you had seen
previously because Americans feel these things very deeply and
see them as a sign of disrespect to the Nation, which they
don't appreciate.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Senator King?
Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just to put into perspective the numbers that we were
talking about at the beginning and looking back on the history.
If we had the Gates budget of 2012, the defense budget this
year would be somewhere around $612 billion, 3.4 percent of
gross domestic product (GDP). Instead, under the sequester
level, we are at $492 billion, 2.8 percent of GDP, which is
just about the lowest level of GDP since World War II.
It is also--it is the lowest level of Federal spending,
lowest percentage of Federal spending for defense since World
War II. Four percent, which is a kind of post-World War II
average, would be $700 billion, almost $100 billion more.
So we are definitely at a very low point in terms of
funding of defense at a time of escalating challenge on
multiple fronts. So I just--I think putting it in percentage of
GDP is a sort of good way to look at it, because it really puts
it in historical perspective.
A question for both of you. Ambassador, you have mentioned
about arming the Ukrainians, and that seems to be a developing
consensus here in Washington that that is something we ought to
do. I understand that, and I understand the precedent of the
Sudetenland, and if there had been force in 1939, we might have
avoided the catastrophe of World War II. On the other hand, I
also understand the precedent of the guns of August and
stumbling into a catastrophic world war.
We are playing chess with a Russian here. Now if you play
chess with a Russian, you better think two and three moves
ahead. My concern is: (A) Russia has a historic paranoia about
encroachment from the west; and (B) Putin probably wouldn't
mind a manageable little war in Ukraine right now to take the
people's minds off of the domestic problems.
Margaret Thatcher's approval rating the day before the
Falklands War was 23 percent. Two weeks later, it was 70
percent. I suspect Putin may not know those numbers, but he
knows the phenomenon.
Persuade me that the escalation by arming the Ukrainians
would not lead to a matching escalation and, in fact, an
increase. We don't live in a static world. We can't assume that
we arm the Ukrainians. Putin says, ``Oh, this is tough. I am
going home.'' He is not responsive to bodies in bags or
tightening sanctions.
Give me your thoughts.
Ambassador Edelman. Well, a couple of things. I know my
colleague will want to speak to this because she, with some
other colleagues, has just been a signatory to a very good
paper on this subject that Brookings Institution, Atlantic
Council, and the Chicago Council on World Affairs, I guess, or
Foreign Affairs, has put out.
I think your question is a good one, Senator King, and it
has to be answered, I would say, at multiple levels.
First, it is true that in some sense President Putin has
what we used to call in the Cold War escalation dominance in
Ukraine. The stakes are higher for him. The region is closer.
He has more force.
Senator King. He has more chips.
Ambassador Edelman. He has more chips, exactly.
Having said that, he is also signatory, his country is
signatory, to a number of agreements that make it clear that
countries have a right to belong to whatever alliance or
multilateral organizations like the European Union that they
would like to associate with. So----
Senator King. Do you seriously believe Putin cares about
agreements?
Ambassador Edelman. No. But we should. We should care about
it. The point is that he doesn't have a legitimate way to
protest that we are helping a legitimate government defend
itself against his aggression. I think we have to think about
it in terms of the moral obligation to do that. When people
want to defend themselves, we have an obligation, I think, to
try to help them if we can.
I think, second, we need to raise the cost for him of what
he is doing. He, I think, is perhaps a little bit more
sensitive to some of these things than you were suggesting. The
body bags coming home. The protesting Russian mothers. The
capital flight. The amount of money that has been expended
defending the ruble. These are real costs, and they are costs
that are hitting his base of support, which is the oligarchs.
They are suffering from this, and so he has to respond to that
in some way.
But I think it is also important to remember that while
there are potentially costs to action, there are very serious
costs to inaction here.
Senator King. Sure. There are risks either way.
Ambassador Edelman. The cost to inaction could be, I would
suggest, a catastrophic miscalculation. We need to make him
understand that if we are willing to provide this kind of
assistance to a country with whom we have no treaty legal
obligation, that he ought to think twice then about doing
something with a NATO member state like Latvia, as Mr. Donnelly
asked me about earlier, with whom we do have a legal treaty
obligation.
It is the importance of underscoring our commitment to
defend our NATO allies in Europe that really is at stake here,
I think. If we don't do this, the risk that he will
miscalculate in a place like Latvia or Estonia I think will go
up dramatically. I think that is something in terms of regret
that we will feel very seriously later on.
Senator King. My father used to say, there lies the body of
Jonathan Gray, who died defending his right of way. But in any
case.
Ms. Flournoy. I would just add that I think one of the
things that we have learned since the collapse of the ceasefire
is that Putin is going to continue to escalate because he wants
to keep destabilizing Ukraine and eventually cause the regime
to change. So he is on an escalatory path anyway.
The question is whether we can provide Ukraine, Ukrainians
with the weapons they need to impose a level of cost on the
separatists and their Russian backers that might make him think
twice. Particularly counter-battery radars that could locate
where the artillery and rocket fire is coming from. That is
what is responsible for 70 percent of the casualties in
Ukraine. Anti-tank systems that could stop armored or heavy-
armored vehicles from taking further territory.
So I think he has demonstrated he is on an escalatory path.
The question is whether there is anything that we can do to
help Ukraine impose costs to make him stop and actually come to
the negotiation seriously.
I think it is worth seeing what happens on Wednesday in
Minsk and seeing if by some miracle an agreement is forged. But
barring that, I think it is very important that we help the
Ukrainians defend themselves and impose greater costs on the
separatists and the Russians for their aggression.
Senator King. Thank you. Very helpful.
Chairman McCain. Senator Ayotte?
Senator Ayotte. I want to thank both of you for being here.
Secretary Flournoy, I wanted to ask you about Afghanistan.
I know that last June you were quoted in the New York Times
about the administration's timeline for withdrawal from
Afghanistan. And one of the things you said was, ``If it was a
timeline with a strong statement that said, hey, this is our
plan, but no plan survives contact with reality, and of course,
we are going to adjust based on conditions on the ground, then
no problem.'' In reference to their withdrawal plan.
"Are the Afghans on the path we had planned for? Are they
not? Is the insurgency as we expected or is it worse? All those
things have to be factored in. What I am hearing out of the
White House is that it is hell or high water. This is what we
are going to do.''
I'm hoping that you have a different sense of this now, and
I wanted to get your thoughts on Afghanistan because many of
us, I think, who have had the opportunity to visit Afghanistan,
and then this weekend, we had obviously the opportunity to sit
down with President Ghani and hear his perspective, to really
understand their plan right now as it stands. President Ghani
seemed very concerned that we not reduce our forces in 2015, in
particular. Then many of us are very concerned that by the end
of 2016 under the current plan, it will really be 1,000 people
based in Kabul.
So I wanted to get your perspective on Afghanistan and what
you think we should be doing.
Ms. Flournoy. So that is a great question. Thank you,
Senator, for asking.
I think at this point we need to change the frame of
discussion on Afghanistan. Rather than debating the fine points
of the final phases of the drawdown and the end of the U.S.
combat role and so forth, we need to stop and say, okay, we
need to look forward.
We have an Afghan Government that is trying--has a good
chance of pulling it together and going forward as a
democratically-elected coalition government. We have an Afghan
National Security Force (ANSF) that is continuing to develop
its capabilities that is in the fight, that is taking risk,
that is trying to hold their ground.
But we also see continued challenge from an insurgency that
remains able to contest a lot of areas. We see continued
activity from al Qaeda moving across, back and forth across the
border.
So now is the time to stop debating whether we can change
the drawdown timeline, and we need to stop and say, okay,
looking forward, what kind of posture does the United States
need, both intelligence and military, in the Armed Forces
Pacific region to protect ourselves against future terrorist
threats and prevent Afghanistan or the border region from
becoming a serious safe haven once again for al-Qaeda and
associated groups?
With that fresh sheet of paper, look at what is the
intelligence posture we need, what is the military posture we
need to support that and to continue to help the Afghan
national forces to develop. I think that shift in the
conversation is very, very important.
My sense is that it is starting to happen inside, certainly
inside the Intelligence Community. But hopefully, that is a
conversation we need to have over the next year.
Senator Ayotte. Could you give, I think, thinking about our
constituents, the importance of really looking forward there
and frankly, in terms of our own interests, the importance of
Afghanistan and the intelligence that we might need from
Afghanistan for protecting our own interests?
Ms. Flournoy. This is an area where we need to continue to
be able to have a sense of what the remnants of al Qaeda that
remain there, their Taliban supporters, the Haqqani network. We
need to still have eyes and ears. It is not something you can
do from Kabul alone or from Bagram alone.
That intelligence posture will require some supporting
military posture. It will be far less than what we have had in
previous years. It is a small continued investment, relatively
speaking, to try to support the Afghan Government in continuing
on the path of progress and continuing to hold their country
and not allow the insurgency to regain any kind of foothold in
terms of actually governing or leading the country.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you.
I also wanted to follow up briefly with the size of the
naval fleet, including the attack submarines. As I understand
it, with sequester we are on a path really to reduce our fleet
size to 260 ships or less overall. Having worked on the QDR,
the Navy's current fleet size is around 285. As I look at the
attack submarine fleet size, this is something that we have
even greater need for now, especially as we want to have a
presence in the Asia-Pacific region.
So I wanted to get your assessment of, as we go forward,
where we are--it looks like a dramatic decline if we continue
on sequester--the importance of the attack submarine fleet, and
this investment and why it is important for us.
Ms. Flournoy. I think, overall, the fleet is on a path to
becoming too small for what we will need in the future. I agree
with you that undersea warfare is an area of American advantage
that we want to do everything in our power to keep.
I think that will require continued investment in the
attack submarine fleet, but it is also going to require
investment in new technologies, such as unmanned undersea
vehicles and how we network manned submarines and unmanned
systems to leverage that capability to have much greater
impact. So I think this is an area very ripe for some new
thinking and development of--both leveraging of new
technologies and developing of new operational concepts.
But your core premise about the importance of the attack
submarine fleet, I think it is a very important advantage area
that we want to maintain.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you.
Ambassador Edelman. Senator, if I could just add, we did
not have the kind of staffing that would have enabled us to do
a real fine-grain analysis of this. But we did conclude, as you
have suggested in your question, as my colleague just suggested
in her answer, that we are on a path towards a fleet that is
much too small and that we ought to--we tried to bracket the
problem for you and your colleagues by saying, somewhere
between the number that Secretary Gates requested in the fiscal
year 2012 budget, which I think was 320 something, and the
number Secretary Perry identified in the bottom-up review,
which was in the 340s, was the place where we ought to be
looking to try and get.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you.
Chairman McCain. Senator Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again thank
you for holding this series of rather strategic looks at what
our defense capabilities should be going forward.
I want to thank both of our panelists for being here and
for your long service to this country.
Follow up--first, I should apologize for missing your
statements and the earlier questions. I was at a briefing on
Iran and those negotiations. But I wanted to follow up on
Senator Ayotte's question because I am not sure if she asked
very directly if, in your assessment, should we be drawing down
troops, the remaining troops, in Afghanistan as rapidly as we
are this year?
Or do you think that sends the wrong message to both the
Afghans, who are trying to make a new start with a new
president and address their internal issues, as well as the
Taliban and the other enemies who are fighting them in
Afghanistan?
Ms. Flournoy. My sense is that the delay in the government
formation process that we have seen post-elections in
Afghanistan should put some more time on the clock in terms of
the drawdown, and we need to re-examine that.
But most fundamentally, what I was trying to say before is
that we need to re-examine the pace and scope of the drawdown
in light what we are going to need in the future. I don't
believe a zero posture in Afghanistan is going to serve our
interests in the long term, given the continued terrorism
threats that we face, given the continued importance of our
support to the development of the ANSF.
So figuring out, instead of from looking back and drawing
down, looking forward and saying what are we going to need in
the next 5 to 10 years? It will be more modest than what it has
been, certainly, but it won't be zero. So, figuring out what
that look like and having that inform the pace and scope of the
final stages of the drawdown, I think, is very important.
Senator Shaheen. Ambassador Edelman, did you agree?
Ambassador Edelman. Senator Shaheen, you have asked a very
good question, and I am very concerned that we are going to go
down too low. I mean, I think it is a source of great regret, I
think, to most of us that we left Iraq without any residual
presence. The consequences, I think, are staring us in the
face, with the rise of ISIL, collapse of the Iraqi security
forces. I worry that we may be putting ourselves on the same
path in Afghanistan, and I hope we won't do that.
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you both.
With respect to Europe and what is happening in Ukraine,
how important is the effort to beef up NATO, to encourage the
European countries to actually follow through on their
commitment to provide 2 percent of GDP for support for NATO?
To what extent do you think actually doing that, actually
taking some of these steps with NATO to put more visible
operations on the borders of Eastern Europe, will be helpful in
deterring Russia from future aggression?
Ms. Flournoy. I think it is absolutely critical. There is a
clear plan to bolster our posture, exercise activity, our
cooperation, our pre-positioning, with our NATO allies,
particularly the front-line states, Baltics, Poland, and so
forth. I think doing that consistently, reliably, visibly is
extremely important to bolstering deterrence and to reassuring
our allies.
I also think that getting more of our allies to meet the 2
percent of GDP defense spending target is essential, as is
engaging them as partners in developing capabilities for the
future. We talk about an offset strategy and innovation agenda.
We need to have that on a transatlantic basis as well, with
some great opportunities for pooling resources, sharing, having
a clearer division of labor, and so forth.
Senator Shaheen. I know that you both were in Munich this
past weekend. To what extent did you hear NATO members,
countries who were there, talking about their appreciation that
this is important for them as well, if at all?
Ambassador Edelman. Well, Senator Shaheen, there was
actually, I thought, not very much of that. I heard a lot of
discussion about how there is no military solution to the
problem in Ukraine. That is, I think, demonstrably false. If we
do nothing, there will be military solution in Ukraine, and it
is going to be the one that is imposed by Vladimir Putin.
I think the importance of all the things, and I agree with
everything that my colleague said about the importance of the
NATO reassurance effort and all of that, in terms of
deterrence. I think we also need to remember it is an important
part of diplomacy.
I always carry around with me a quotation from George
Kennan, who says, you have no idea--this was a lecture he gave
to the National War College in 1946--how much it contributes to
the general politeness and pleasantness of diplomacy when you
have a little quiet armed force in the background. I think that
we tend to lose track of that.
I mean, what is now going on, and I hope maybe there will
be some success to it on Wednesday, but we should be clear
about what is happening. The Europeans are discussing this and
calling it ``Minsk Plus.'' But it is really ``Ukraine Minus''
because what it does is it reaffirms the principles of the
Minsk Agreement in September but makes adjustment for the
reality of the continued aggression by the Donbass separatists.
We should have no illusions about what is happening here,
and it is the reason why I think I--I am not going to speak for
my colleague, but why I believe we do need to, on the Ukrainian
Government, to raise the cost to President Putin.
I will say, and Senator King has raised this and raised
rightly the question of how do we respond to further escalation
by President Putin? One thing I think is absolutely important
to bear in mind, which is if we do this, we have to do this
seriously.
We cannot arm the Ukrainian Government the way we have been
arming the Syrian moderate opposition for the last 3 years.
Because if we do that, we will end up with all the effective
provocation of President Putin, with none of the benefit of
increased deterrence or military capability for Ukraine.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you both.
Chairman McCain. Senator Hirono?
Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to be noted as voting in person for Dr.
Carter.
Chairman McCain. Without objection.
Senator Hirono. Thank you.
Thank you both for your testimony and your service.
Secretary Flournoy, I do appreciate your noting that there
is a shift in the conversation that is beginning regarding what
we need to do in Afghanistan, and certainly in the Intelligence
Community that this shift is happening. I think that moves us
forward, as opposed to talking about what we should have done,
et cetera.
I also would like to thank both of you for stressing the
important of maintaining our sea power and your concerns about
our decreasing size of our fleet. Dr. Carter was asked at his
confirmation, and I would like to paraphrase the question he
was asked. He was asked how do we respond to the threats in the
Middle East and Africa, Ukraine, and still be committed to the
rebalance to the Asia-Pacific?
I would like to ask both of you the same question, but
first, why you believe that the rebalance is important to our
national security.
Ms. Flournoy. Well, let me start it since I can be blamed
for part of that--part of that initiative.
When you look long term at what region of the world will
have the greatest impact on U.S. economic prosperity and, I
think, our security, Asia-Pacific is undeniably sort of the
most important. So, it speaks to even though we obviously have
to deal with crises in the Middle East, we have to deal with
Russian aggression in Europe, over the arc of the long term we
want to be ensuring that we are adequately investing in Asia,
in the foundations of continued economic growth, in the
maintenance of the rules-based international order that has
been underwriting stability there, in our alliances, in our
partnerships.
So I think it is very important that the rebalance continue
not only militarily shifting more of our assets there and
becoming--investing more with our partnerships and alliances
there, but also in economic terms. I think this is why the
Trans-Pacific Partnership is such an important initiative, to
signal U.S. commitment to the region, U.S. staying power, that
the United States will remain a critical economic partner as
well as a security partner going forward.
Senator Hirono. Mr. Ambassador?
Ambassador Edelman. The region obviously is growing in
wealth and importance in the world, and obviously America's
future is very much tied up. We have always been an Atlantic
and a Pacific nation, but the impact of the Pacific is much
greater now and will be in the future for some time to come.
I think it is for that reason that all the members of the
panel agreed that the general direction that the President
announced in the Defense Strategic Guidance in January 2012 was
the right direction. I think what we expressed in the report is
some concern about whether at current budget levels this will
be sustainable, and that is why we talked about the importance
of growing both naval and air capability because this is a
theater where largely we are going to be operating in and
because of the tyranny of distance and geography over water and
air.
So I think the need is clear. I think it is important that
we move ahead on the rebalance. I am concerned that what we
have done already is fairly limited. On the military side, it
is--and I am not saying that we shouldn't do it, but it is
basically 2,500 marines rotationally deployed to Darwin, 4
littoral combat ships home ported in Singapore, and some
rebalancing of a shrinking fleet.
I think we need to do more, and it is one of the reasons I
think we believe we have to lift the BCA caps and
sequestration.
Senator Hirono. Thank you.
Mr. Ambassador, you noted in a response to one of the
questions earlier asked that other nations are decreasing the
amount of resources they are putting into the military.
Would you say that that is where Japan is also?
Ambassador Edelman. Under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Japan
has obviously done a bit to increase its defense capabilities.
I don't think they have done enough, and we need to make sure
that the money they spend--I mean, Japan spends about 1 percent
of its GDP on defense, which is, given the size of the Japanese
economy, a considerable amount of money.
I think where we need to help our allies in Japan is
working with them, as I said earlier in response to one of the
questions, to focus on the capabilities we think they can
provide that will really be additive and help complement what
we are doing. That is what I think we ought to be doing with
Japan.
I think Prime Minister Abe has done a lot to change the
direction in Japan in a more positive direction.
Senator Hirono. Mr. Chairman, may I just ask the Secretary
to respond to that, too?
Ms. Flournoy. I would agree that I think Japan is moving in
the right direction. I think Prime Minister Abe is seeking to
have an internal discussion that will allow the Japanese
military to play a more fulsome role as a full partner in our
alliance.
I think that the depth of the alliance relationship is
really unprecedented now, and we are deeply engaged in looking
at the region, developing common understandings of the
environment, the threats we see, the capabilities that are
needed, how we will invest together, and so forth. So I
actually think the alliance is on a very strong footing and
moving in the right direction.
But the question really is the internal debate within Japan
about the proper role of the military and what the Japanese
people are comfortable with moving forward.
Senator Hirono. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Senator Kaine?
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
the witnesses.
I also want to be noticed. I was a proxy `yes' for Ash
Carter, but I am a proud `yes' now that I am here from my
Foreign Relations meeting.
Thank you for your testimony, especially your strong
testimony with respect to the foolishness of the sequester in
today's global environment.
Big picture strategic question, since you are both good
strategic thinkers. I know questions have been asked earlier
about Afghanistan. We are grappling with--and we will have
hearing on Afghanistan later in the week--should our activities
be based on a calendar or based on conditions on the ground?
Those questions have been asked already.
But from a strategic standpoint, talk about what failure in
Afghanistan would mean. If we were to pull out precipitously,
for example, and then the gains that we have achieved are lost,
what would that mean to U.S. credibility? What would it mean to
the people of Afghanistan? What would it mean in the region
from a security standpoint?
Ms. Flournoy. Well I can start. I think, if history is any
guide, it could be very dangerous for the Afghan Government and
Afghan society.
Recall that when the Soviets ended their aid to the Afghan
Government, the government collapsed. I think if the United
States were to have and the international community were to
have no follow-on mission in NATO, that international
assistance would quickly dry up, and you could see a sort of
accelerated decline of the Afghan Government's hold over
territory and the country. So I think it would be very, very
dangerous.
On the opportunity side, I think with continued modest, but
consistent international support, I think the Afghan Government
has an opportunity to hold the key urban centers, the ring
road, the strategic territory inside Afghanistan, and keep
governing without having the government and the overall control
of the country being threatened by a continued insurgency.
Given that this region remains a home to various terrorist
elements that still harbor very dire intentions, dangerous
intentions against the United States, it is some place we have
to keep an eye on and keep investing in to make sure those
threats are kept at bay.
So I think the stakes are very high. I also think it would
be very damaging for U.S. credibility to have put so much into
getting Afghanistan to the point where it is today and then to
pull the carpet out from underneath their feet. I think it
would also be very damaging in terms of civil-military
relations, given the degree of sacrifice that our men and women
have been asked to make, to create the possibility for
Afghanistan to succeed and then to walk away from that before
we complete the job I think would be very, very damaging.
Senator Kaine. Ambassador Edelman, quickly, I have one more
question, but would there be something you would want to add to
that?
Ambassador Edelman. I agree. The reputational risk. The
homeland risk because it will become ungoverned space again. I
would add one other thing. It will reduce our strategic
leverage on Pakistan, and we should not lose sight of the large
number of nuclear weapons that Pakistan presides over.
Senator Kaine. One other question. The big picture strategy
sense. I was a mayor worrying about my police force. I was a
governor worrying about economic development. But you guys have
been doing national security for your whole career, so I want
to hear your thoughts on this.
We often hear questions in these hearings about where is
the strategy? And I am kind of sympathetic to those questions.
As I look kind of quickly at what we have been up to, we had a
national security strategy, like it or not. The Truman Doctrine
from 1946 until the Soviet Union collapsed. I think we then
went into kind of an ad hoc-ism period. That may not be a bad
thing, but we kind of dealt with challenges as they arose and
often not in consistent ways.
September 11 began. Our policy was the war on terror. That
is not a big enough national security policy for a nation as
great as the United States, as magnanimous as the United
States. And so, I think we are probably now recognizing the
ongoing battle with terror, still looking for a broader
definition of what is a big picture national strategy.
Are we back to a sort of ad hoc-ism? Or as folks who have
done this for a lifetime professionally, what would you suggest
to us the big picture national security strategy should be?
Ms. Flournoy. To me? This is the $64,000 question. I think
that it is something, we have to rise above the crisis of the
day and get back to having a strategic framework, a sense of
American purpose in the world that can garner bipartisan
support.
I personally believe that one of the key elements of it is
to defend the international rules-based order that we put into
place, we architected after World War II, that has been the
basis for stability in so many regions, and it has been the
basis for our economic growth and our security.
We have a lot riding on that, and it is being challenged in
Asia with the rise of China that is questioning that order and
challenging and trying to unilaterally change the status quo.
It is being challenged in the Middle East as the boundaries of
nation-states start to fray, and you have Sunni-Shia conflict,
the rise of extremist terrorist elements. Now it is being
challenged in the heart of Europe with Russian aggression
across an international border.
So I think sustaining that rules-based international order
is something that has to be at the heart of any strategic
framework we develop.
Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair, could I ask Ambassador Edelman
just to answer that question as well?
Ambassador Edelman. Well, I agree with everything that my
colleague said, Senator Kaine. So that makes it a little bit
easier.
A few years ago, there was an article in the journal
International Security that had the provocative title of
``Strategy is an Illusion.'' I teach a course in American grand
strategy at Johns Hopkins University, School of Advanced
International Studies, and my students at the end of it, some
of them say, ``well, yes, it was easy to have a strategy when
you had a bipolar world and one adversary. Now it is just so
complicated. It is too hard.''
As Secretary Flournoy and I said in our opening statement
that we are dealing with a volatile and complex security
environment, and therefore, maybe you might just say, well, it
is too hard to do.
My view is that as hard as it may be, marrying objectives
to ways and means is just the essence of good governance, and
if you don't try to do it, it just becomes an excuse for going,
taking any road that will lead you where you think you might
want to go, but you won't have a road map. So I think it is a
necessity. I think we have to do it.
I think there is a lot of merit in what Secretary Kissinger
has suggested, that we need to--we are faced by primarily
regional challengers now, not a global peer competitor. We need
to develop regional strategies, but strategies that are
interconnected with an overarching global vision, and I think
that is the beginning of wisdom on that subject.
Senator Kaine. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. I do recall a thing called the Reagan
Doctrine, which in the words of Margaret Thatcher, won the Cold
War without firing a shot. But maybe there are some of us who
have different views of history.
Senator Sullivan, did you have an additional question?
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just had one quick follow-up question, and it relates to
some of the broader issues that we are struggling with here. I
would like your views on just some of the--your thoughts on
what is going to be looks like an upcoming debate in Congress
on the authorization for use of military force (AUMF).
Secretary Flournoy, you mentioned a fresh start looking
forward. How would you advise Members of Congress to look at
that, whether it is years, troops, geographic scope? There is a
lot that can go into something like that. It is going to be
important, and I would just appreciate your views on that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Flournoy. First of all, I would say I think it is
important to have the discussion. The debate about the AUMF
will be a good surrogate for what should our strategy be with
regard to counterterrorism and with regard to the Middle East.
I think that as you have that discussion, it is very
important to remember something that was said earlier, which is
we are very bad at predicting exactly how conflicts are going
to unfold, how enemies are going to act, how things are going
to morph and change. So, being overly restrictive, saying
categorically no boots on the ground, or don't do this. Being
overly restrictive, I think, could become a problem over time.
That said, I think it is very, very important to recognize
that the AUMF that we have from 2001, a lot of realities have
moved beyond that, and we do need to update it and recognize
that there are groups who have distanced themselves from al
Qaeda but, nevertheless, now pose a similar threat to us. We
need to have an authorization to deal with them.
But again, I would just caution against being overly
predictive or specific in restrictions because we don't exactly
know how the threat will evolve, how our response will need to
evolve.
Ambassador Edelman. Senator Sullivan, I agree with that. I
agree with everything that Michele just said.
I would just add that the other element here is I know that
there is lots of interest in some kind of timeline. We
frequently talk about this. I think that to do that is to set
up potentially a very divisive and a difficult debate later on
down the road.
Things don't always work out in war. There are mistakes,
and you have problems. You have to let the people who are
fighting the war fight the war. I think you also don't want to
signal lack of resolve to the other side and tell them how long
they have to wait you out.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Well, I thank you, the witnesses, and we
have covered a wide range of issues today.
Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chairman, can I ask another question
before we close?
Chairman McCain. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
I wanted to follow up on Senator Kaine's question about
strategy because there have been a number of high-profile
articles in the last few months about the lessons learned in
Afghanistan and Iraq, and there has been the DOD-commissioned
report from the RAND Corporation about those lessons learned
that have suggested that we ought to also take a look at our
decisionmaking structures and think about how we can better
make some of those decisions.
I wonder if I could get each of you to comment on whether
you think that is an accurate analysis of some of the
challenges that we face and what we should do better as we are
thinking about how to make these decisions in the future.
Ms. Flournoy. I think it is really important to try to
pause and catalogue what lessons we should be learning. There
is kind of a desire to get all of this in the rearview mirror
and just move on. But it is very, very important to understand
what we should take away from this and capture some of the best
practices that were developed on the ground. So I think it is
an important exercise.
I do think that the decisionmaking element, particularly at
the interagency level, is something that bears study. It is
something that actually the Center for New American Security is
looking at going forward because I think you can look at
different models of National Security Councils, different ways
in which they have operated, different results over time and
history, and you can draw some conclusions about what works
better and what doesn't.
Similarly, I think in the field, some of the innovations
for fusing intelligence and operations and having all of the
interagency players in one operations center, sharing
authorities, information, and conducting truly joint whole-of-
government operations, that is something we don't want to lose,
the next time we may have to face an operational challenge.
So I think it is a really important line of inquiry.
Ambassador Edelman. Senator Shaheen, I have to confess to a
certain degree of skepticism about reforming the interagency
process. It is a little bit like the weather. People are always
talking about it, and then it doesn't ever change.
The National Security Act of 1947 is an incredibly
flexible--has created an incredibly flexible system. The
reality is that it is flexible enough that each President that
we have had has developed a system that suits their management
style best and for better or for worse.
Our system is so presidential-centric in terms of national
security decisionmaking that I think unless you really want to
tinker with the Constitution, I am not sure that anything else
that you do is going to be more than moving kind of boxes
around on a wiring diagram. So I think it is certainly worth
looking at lessons learned, and there are always better or
worse ways to do it.
But I am struck by the fact that the relationship between
process and outcome is not always clear and direct. If you read
through, for instance, the transcripts of the Executive
Committee of the National Security Council during the Cuban
missile crisis and were graded on process, you would give it an
F, because there are no agendas. They are not talking from
common papers. They are not doing anything that they teach you
to do at the Kennedy School of Government, for instance.
But President Kennedy came roughly to the right decision,
obviously, somehow. I think that is just testimony to what I
was saying. This is a system that really ultimately revolves
around the President, and he or she, I think, should not
necessarily be constrained by efforts to tinker with the
machinery.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you both.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Your testimony has been very helpful. We
began our conversations about your work on a commission, and
now we have branched out and covered a lot of very important
areas that I think that needs to be an important part of the
discussion and dialogue that we have on both sides of the aisle
and both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
So you have contributed a great deal to our knowledge and
our thought process, and I thank you for it.
Jack?
Senator Reed. I simply want to express the same feeling of
appreciation for your efforts not just today, but for many,
many years. Thank you very much.
Chairman McCain. Thank you.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the committee adjourned.]
[all]