FY 2007 posture statement before the Armed Services Committee
It is appropriate to note that this is my first appearance before this Committee with General Pete Pace in his new role as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Many of you have come to know General Pace and to appreciate his abilities. He understands that the decisions he helps to make have a profound impact on our men and women in uniform and their families. And he is doing a fine job for our country.
Also with us is the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Pete Schoomaker. Because so many of the key issues involve the Army, we thought it would be useful to have General Schoomaker here to join in responding to your questions.
This is the sixth consecutive year I’ve appeared before you to discuss the Department’s budget. We’ve met during times of war, and at a time when war seemed unlikely. We’ve met during periods of national unity, and in the midst of great controversy and debate over the course recent wars have taken. In every instance, the American people expected us to put the defense of this nation before political or parochial concerns. We have tried to do just that in making the tough decisions that our troops merit and that history will remember.
We meet today–again–as a nation engaged in what will be a “long war”–a conflict that has put our military on a path of near continuous change for the past five years. A conflict, which also is having the effect of transforming the way our forces fight and defend the nation.
Not long before Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7, 1941, the United States had a standing army of about 200,000, putting us somewhere below Romania among the world’s militaries. Just a few years earlier, American soldiers had been training with wooden rifles. Almost starting from scratch, America began to field huge armies and stand up an armaments industry that turned out massive fleets of ships, aircraft, tanks and equipment of every kind.
After Pearl Harbor, there were many setbacks and false starts–think of the losses at Kasserine Pass, the bloody landings at Tarawa and Anzio, and the frustrating inability of American tanks to be able to go one on one against German Panzers. Over the following several years, our nation would learn some tough lessons and marshal the forces necessary to eventually triumph over two fascist empires.
When our country was attacked again on September 11th, we found ourselves in another global conflict, though one that had been started years earlier by our enemies. Fortunately, the process of rethinking and reconfiguring our military for such an eventuality was already well under way. Within three months, the Taliban regime and its al Qaeda “guests” were routed in a landlocked country several thousand miles away. And within three years, our military had removed a dangerous and brutal regime from Iraq and helped to stand up a new democratically elected government that is now fighting terrorists instead of harboring them.
This would not have been possible without an historic change in the way our military is arranged and operates.
Consider that when I first assumed this post more than 30 years ago, America’s military establishment was understandably organized, trained and equipped to deter the Soviet Union and to do battle against large armies, navies, and air forces.
When I returned to the Department in 2001, the Armed Forces–though smaller–were in many respects still pretty much organized the same way they were during the Cold War.
The President recognized this and charged the Department with making the changes necessary to adapt to the new circumstances and threats of an uncertain era–an environment where the greatest threats were less likely to come from large armies, navies and air forces, but instead from the evil designs of terrorists and rogue nations.
The urgency of these changes were made all too plain 53 months ago on that mid-September morning, by 19 men carrying tourist visas, boarding passes, and box cutters.
And today, this enemy, though under constant pressure and on the defensive, still intends to bring its cult of murder and suicide to our shores, and our cities–and to those of our closest allies as well.
This “long war” is the central security issue of our time. The ensuing campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan and other theaters in the Global War on Terror have added new impetus and urgency to transformation efforts that were already underway in this Department.
This process of continuous change and adaptation is so critical because of the nature of the enemy we face, one that has left little doubt about its intentions.
Last month, Osama bin Laden warned of yet more attacks on America. He has said:
“Let every person … come forward to fight those Jews and Americans … their killing is from the most important duties and most pressing things.”
His top lieutenant, Zawahiri, warned us last year:
“Oh, Americans, in New York and Washington and the losses you are having in Afghanistan and Iraq … are only the losses of the initial clashes.”
The enemy cannot win any conventional battle, so they challenge us through nontraditional, or asymmetric means, using terror as their weapon of choice. Their goal is to break America’s resolve through the deft use of propaganda and carefully plotted attacks that garner headlines.
They are willing to employ every means–every lie, every atrocity, and every available technology and means of communication–to achieve their aims. In a few short years they have become experts at manipulating the global media to both inspire and intimidate. They have media committees and handbooks that advise their operatives when and how to lie–in particular to claim torture when captured–in order to generate coverage and commentary that damages vigorous anti-terrorism efforts. They have multiple web sites that display videos of bombings and beheadings that are shown around the world.
Their priority is to force us to abandon Iraq before that country is ready to defend itself so they can turn it into a base of operation–as was Afghanistan before 9/11.
In a letter written by Zawahiri, he spelled out their strategy: “The first stage: expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: establish an Islamic authority. The third stage: extend the jihad.”
And have no doubt: should these fanatics obtain the weapons of mass destruction they actively seek, the survival of our free way of life would be at risk.
The enemy would like to define this war as a conflict between Islam and the West, but it is not. It is, in fact, a war within the Muslim world between the overwhelming majority of moderates and a much smaller number of violent extremists. The vast majority of Muslims do not share the violent ideology of al-Qaeda. They have children and families they care about. They hope for a better future for themselves and their countries. They do not want the extremists to win. And many are opposing them at every opportunity.
IRAQ:
We see this dynamic at work in Iraq. On December 15th it was the brave and decent people of Iraq–Shia, Kurds, Sunnis and others–who seized the headlines and captured the attention and admiration of the world. Some 12 million Iraqis–about 70 percent of eligible voters–and thousands of candidates came together in a remarkably peaceful and orderly election. The jihadists, Baathist holdouts and criminals who dominate the daily news from Iraq were unable to halt yet another important milestone in that country’s remarkable transformation.
Consider that compared to the successful provisional elections held last January, nearly four million more Iraqis voted and there were about 80 percent fewer violent attacks. And Sunnis, who had previously boycotted the political process, participated in large numbers, encouraged by their leaders not to make the same mistake again. In the Sunni majority Anbar province, turnout rose from 2 percent in January to 86 percent of registered voters in December.
The marginalization of the terrorists on Election Day last December was due in large part to the growth in the size, confidence and capability of the Iraqi security forces–increasing from some 120,000 to 220,000 over the course of the year. Already, some 30 U.S. military bases have either been returned to Iraqi control or closed altogether. The 8th Iraqi Army Division recently took over a battle space the size of Kentucky, the largest such area transferred to date. So far, this division has seized nearly 5,000 weapons, confiscated more than 1,000 pounds of explosives and detained more than 1,000 suspects.