Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
National Journal
June 21, 2008 Joint Chiefs Chairman Michael Mullen discusses the Air Force shake-up, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and rivalries between the branches of the military.
When Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked recently to imagine his legacy, he seemed genuinely perplexed. Speaking at a National Press Club forum hosted by National Journal Group's Government Executive, Mullen said he hasn't spent much time pondering the question. For today's four-star commanders, legacy may turn out to be what happens while they're handling other crises.
To name just a few issues in Mullen's flaming in-box, there's the recent firing of the Air Force's top leadership for lax management of the nation's nuclear deterrent; a looming modernization crisis as the services struggle to replace aging and war-worn arsenals at a time of tight budgets and chronic cost overruns; and a contentious debate over whether to give priority to conventional or counterinsurgency threats, an argument that is increasingly pitting the Navy and Air Force against the Army and Marine Corps. And all of that is on top of ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a looming confrontation with Iran, and a still potent threat from Al Qaeda. National Journal Staff Correspondent James Kitfield and Government Executive Editor-in-Chief Timothy Clark spoke with Mullen about all of those issues. Edited excerpts follow.
NJ: Is it true that Air Force Chief of Staff Mike Moseley and Secretary Michael Wynne recently resigned strictly because of problems with the Air Force's stewardship of the nuclear deterrent, including mistakenly sending nuclear fuses to Taiwan and unknowingly flying six nuclear missiles across the country in a B-52?
Mullen: Yes, the most recent investigation indicated a continuing slip, and the action taken was tied specifically to that vital mission. We've got to make sure to arrest that decline, turn it around, and return to the standards that many of us grew up with. I admire Secretary Wynne and General Moseley for recognizing that they are accountable as leaders of the Air Force. So both of them stepped up and voluntarily took responsibility and resigned.
NJ: How do you respond to speculation that the Air Force resignations were also tied to Defense Secretary Robert Gates's dissatisfaction with the service's resistance to shutting down production of the F-22 fighter, and its slow fielding of unmanned aerial vehicles to Iraq and Afghanistan?
Mullen: These resignations may be interpreted to mean many things, but I was there, and I would just repeat that it's very clear that the action was very specifically tied to the backsliding in the nuclear mission, which we must arrest. That is a hugely significant priority for us, and I think everyone understands that we cannot afford any defects in that area.
NJ: Yet didn't Gates complain in an Air War College speech that it was like "pulling teeth" to get the service bureaucracies to more aggressively field surveillance and reconnaissance assets such as UAVs to the battlefield?
Mullen: Clearly, his frustration centers on the fact that we've been unable to move rapidly enough to provide one of the most critical enablers to fight these two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. We've seen such great production out of that capability in this fight. The problem speaks to the adaptation involved in our shifting to counterinsurgency warfare. The Pentagon can be particularly bureaucratic and, in some cases, pretty hard to make move in the direction you want it to move. And with the priority of this fight and the impact of this particular capability, the secretary has put tremendous emphasis on the issue.
NJ: How do you respond to observers who perceive a different emphasis in your comments on the need for the U.S. military to once again prepare for the conventional threats of the future, such as a rising China, and Secretary Gates's focus on winning the counterinsurgency wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Mullen: Well, we definitely need to continue the focus on irregular warfare and counterinsurgency. We're not far enough down that road by any means, despite having come a long way in a very short period of time. I think irregular warfare will be with us for the foreseeable future, and we need to invest in that and make sure we get it right. We can't take our eye off the long-term ball, however, and fail to invest in traditional and conventional kinds of capabilities as well. In the world we're living in today, we've got to deliver both an exceptional irregular-warfare capability, and an exceptional conventional capability. That's the big challenge.
NJ: Is that challenge made even more daunting by well-publicized cost overruns on major new weapons programs such as fighter aircraft and ships?
Mullen: From an acquisition standpoint, I am extremely concerned about the continuing spiraling out of control of the costs of these programs. If that continues they will collapse of their own weight, and we can't afford that. I'm also concerned about cyber-threats. I'm concerned about the health of our space assets. We've got to modernize our Air Force, because they've got a lot of old airplanes that we're going to have to recapitalize. We've got to do the same thing with our Navy and our shipbuilding account. We've got to modernize our ground forces as well. So the challenges are huge, which is one reason I've tried to start a discussion about how much we invest in our defense. The security challenges we face are immense, and we underfund some of the capabilities we need to deal with those threats. We need to have a discussion with the American people about what it's going to take to defend our country.
NJ: As part of that discussion, Congress has directed you to undertake another review of "roles and missions" to see whether there is overlap in service missions that can be eliminated for cost savings. Are you worried that such a review will once again pit the services against each other in an acrimonious budget scrum?
Mullen: I came into town in the middle of the last roles-and-missions debate, and all the services essentially had their weapons drawn and pointed at each other, basically saying you're not going to get any of mine. I've had this conversation with the other service chiefs. We as senior leaders are intent on not letting that happen this time. Over the last 15 to 20 years, we've made tremendous progress from a joint perspective, realizing that we all have to work together. That said, we all recognize that resources are very tight and they could get even tighter. In the near future, we're going to have to make some very difficult decisions about where to invest scarce resources. And when you have a shortage of resources, it can sometimes bring out the worst in all of us. So as a senior military leader, I am very anxious to make sure that the [past infighting] doesn't happen again amongst the services.
NJ: In recent negotiations about the status of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations' mandate expires at the end of this year, senior Iraqi officials complained that the United States was driving too hard a bargain that would infringe on Iraqi sovereignty, and that U.S. forces should leave the country if we weren't willing to relax our demands. Do you worry about how such a debate is playing on Capitol Hill?
Mullen: As a senior military adviser, my position is just to state what my requirements are to protect the United States military forces that are in Iraq, and then let the politics play out. Clearly, there are individuals [in Congress] on both sides of the aisle that understand the issue very thoroughly, and they have taken strong positions. I do know that we are going to need some agreement by the end of the year, and I am confident that we will get there, without being specific [about] exactly how we will get there. I have also been struck by a healthy aspect to the public debate in Iraq. Historically, that kind of debate has not taken place in Iraq.
NJ: The debate in Iraq also suggests that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki's government has newfound confidence in Iraqi security forces after recent successful operations in Basra and Sadr City. Do you share the view of some experts that Iraq has turned a corner?
Mullen: In my view, the se-curity environment in Iraq has been set in a very positive direction, certainly compared to where we were sometime ago. That has enabled the politicians to start to reconcile, which they have done by way of passing laws that, in some cases, few would have predicted they'd pass a few months ago. You know, when Prime Minister Maliki took action in Basra, many people criticized him for moving too fast and lacking a plan. Lost in that discussion was the fact that Iraqi security forces moved a division inside of a few days, something they could never have pulled off a year ago. Then there was the operation in Sadr City that you mentioned, and Iraqi security forces are also leading the way in operations up north in Mosul. So while I'm not predicting any turning points, I am encouraged. We are on a good trend line economically, politically, and militarily right now. I'm hopeful that it will continue.
NJ: The Iraq war is obviously a major issue in this year's presidential election; Barack Obama has promised to withdraw combat forces in 16 months, and John McCain says he hopes that most U.S. troops can be out by 2013. Is it possible that the gap between those two positions is narrower than it appears at first glance?
Mullen: Clearly, based on what has happened and the trend line I just talked about, the potential to narrow that gap is pretty significant. Having said that, at a time when there is huge national and international focus on who is going to be the next president, I work very hard to stay out of the political lane. Right now President Bush has given me a mission, and we are executing that mission. When we get a new president I will engage with him, come to understand his policy, give my best advice, and march off accordingly.
NJ: Last year the Pentagon undertook to raise the cost to Iran of its meddling in Iraq, which included training and arming anti-American militias. Have we gained any leverage with Tehran as a result of the arrests of Iranian agents inside Iraq, and has Iran lessened its support for Shiite militias?
Mullen: I haven't seen a lot of mitigation of what the Iranians are doing. We know that Iran's reach is network-like in its state sponsorship of terrorism. They reach heavily into Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, and, obviously, Iraq. And they reach into Afghanistan in supporting their former archenemy, the Taliban. So Iran continues to be of great concern to me. My engagements throughout the region just reaffirm that its neighbors are extremely nervous about Iran. I also believe that Iran is still on a track to develop nuclear weapons. Their achieving that goal has the potential to really destabilize the entire region. If they get nuclear weapons, you have to ask, "Who's next?" If we see a breakout of nuclear weapons powers in the Middle East, that could portend disaster.
NJ: So what is the answer?
Mullen: I think we've got to bring as much international pressure on Iran as possible, recognizing that it's difficult. Given the price of oil, Iran is well resourced, and I have no expectation that those resources are going to dry up in the near future. I also think that a good hedge vis-a-vis Iran is going to be a strong Iraq. Iran would clearly like to see a weak Iraq and a central government in Baghdad that they can control. Sometimes it's difficult, however, to figure out exactly what the Iranian strategy is. We haven't had any relations with them for going on 30 years, so it's hard to understand their thinking.
NJ: Given Iran's role as a spoiler in the region, and with so much now at stake for the United States, doesn't it make sense to directly engage with Iran to discern its motives and explore potential accommodations?
Mullen: I would like to have a healthy dialogue with Iran, but many different administrations over a period of decades have been unable to achieve that. But I do think engagement would offer an opportunity, certainly, to understand each other better. That said, the Iranians have to want to talk too. It can't just be a desire on our part. And the Iranians haven't shown much propensity for dialogue.
NJ: Given the Taliban's recent attacks and gains inside Afghanistan, what assurances did you get on your recent trip to Pakistan that the new government there would work to stop the infiltration of Taliban fighters into Afghanistan from sanctuaries inside its territory?
Mullen: We are clearly concerned about insurgents continuing to cross that porous border to fight and kill Afghan, coalition, and American forces. And we continue to press very hard on the Pakistanis to enforce the kind of restrictions on that border that won't allow that movement. At the same time, we have got a new government in Pakistan, and I believe we need to let that government get its legs. They have only stood up in the last 60 days, and they have huge challenges, not the least of which is this violent extremism. At the same time, insurgents continue to cross that border from Pakistan, and they are coming after us in many cases, and we can't allow that.
NJ: Aren't Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda also regrouping and planning new attacks on the United States from Pakistani territory?
Mullen: The leadership of Al Qaeda is clearly in the FATA [Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas]. That, of course, creates a lot of tension between us and Pakistan. But I believe we still have to respect Pakistan's sovereignty. I can tell you, just coming back from Pakistan, that its leaders understand that they have a very significant extremist problem that needs to be addressed, but it's not going to happen overnight. [The tribal area] is a very challenging region. In the long run, I still believe it's going to be the Pakistani government, security forces, and people that get a handle on this problem, just as I believe it's going to be the Afghan government, security forces, and people who get a grip on it from the other side of the border.
NJ: Granting all that, the new Pakistani government reportedly reached an agreement with senior Taliban leaders that sounds very reminiscent of the failed cease-fire that General Pervez Musharraf made with the Taliban more than a year ago. Why should we expect any different results this time?
Mullen: There are actually multiple pacts currently in play with different groups, not all of which have been finalized and signed. Pakistani officials have said they won't sign an agreement unless it's enforceable, which is our big concern. The past agreements were not enforced. If there is one area I want to focus on, it's enforcement. That is where we've been hurt in the past.
June 21, 2008 Joint Chiefs Chairman Michael Mullen discusses the Air Force shake-up, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and rivalries between the branches of the military.
When Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked recently to imagine his legacy, he seemed genuinely perplexed. Speaking at a National Press Club forum hosted by National Journal Group's Government Executive, Mullen said he hasn't spent much time pondering the question. For today's four-star commanders, legacy may turn out to be what happens while they're handling other crises.
To name just a few issues in Mullen's flaming in-box, there's the recent firing of the Air Force's top leadership for lax management of the nation's nuclear deterrent; a looming modernization crisis as the services struggle to replace aging and war-worn arsenals at a time of tight budgets and chronic cost overruns; and a contentious debate over whether to give priority to conventional or counterinsurgency threats, an argument that is increasingly pitting the Navy and Air Force against the Army and Marine Corps. And all of that is on top of ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a looming confrontation with Iran, and a still potent threat from Al Qaeda. National Journal Staff Correspondent James Kitfield and Government Executive Editor-in-Chief Timothy Clark spoke with Mullen about all of those issues. Edited excerpts follow.
NJ: Is it true that Air Force Chief of Staff Mike Moseley and Secretary Michael Wynne recently resigned strictly because of problems with the Air Force's stewardship of the nuclear deterrent, including mistakenly sending nuclear fuses to Taiwan and unknowingly flying six nuclear missiles across the country in a B-52?
Mullen: Yes, the most recent investigation indicated a continuing slip, and the action taken was tied specifically to that vital mission. We've got to make sure to arrest that decline, turn it around, and return to the standards that many of us grew up with. I admire Secretary Wynne and General Moseley for recognizing that they are accountable as leaders of the Air Force. So both of them stepped up and voluntarily took responsibility and resigned.
NJ: How do you respond to speculation that the Air Force resignations were also tied to Defense Secretary Robert Gates's dissatisfaction with the service's resistance to shutting down production of the F-22 fighter, and its slow fielding of unmanned aerial vehicles to Iraq and Afghanistan?
Mullen: These resignations may be interpreted to mean many things, but I was there, and I would just repeat that it's very clear that the action was very specifically tied to the backsliding in the nuclear mission, which we must arrest. That is a hugely significant priority for us, and I think everyone understands that we cannot afford any defects in that area.
NJ: Yet didn't Gates complain in an Air War College speech that it was like "pulling teeth" to get the service bureaucracies to more aggressively field surveillance and reconnaissance assets such as UAVs to the battlefield?
Mullen: Clearly, his frustration centers on the fact that we've been unable to move rapidly enough to provide one of the most critical enablers to fight these two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. We've seen such great production out of that capability in this fight. The problem speaks to the adaptation involved in our shifting to counterinsurgency warfare. The Pentagon can be particularly bureaucratic and, in some cases, pretty hard to make move in the direction you want it to move. And with the priority of this fight and the impact of this particular capability, the secretary has put tremendous emphasis on the issue.
NJ: How do you respond to observers who perceive a different emphasis in your comments on the need for the U.S. military to once again prepare for the conventional threats of the future, such as a rising China, and Secretary Gates's focus on winning the counterinsurgency wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Mullen: Well, we definitely need to continue the focus on irregular warfare and counterinsurgency. We're not far enough down that road by any means, despite having come a long way in a very short period of time. I think irregular warfare will be with us for the foreseeable future, and we need to invest in that and make sure we get it right. We can't take our eye off the long-term ball, however, and fail to invest in traditional and conventional kinds of capabilities as well. In the world we're living in today, we've got to deliver both an exceptional irregular-warfare capability, and an exceptional conventional capability. That's the big challenge.
NJ: Is that challenge made even more daunting by well-publicized cost overruns on major new weapons programs such as fighter aircraft and ships?
Mullen: From an acquisition standpoint, I am extremely concerned about the continuing spiraling out of control of the costs of these programs. If that continues they will collapse of their own weight, and we can't afford that. I'm also concerned about cyber-threats. I'm concerned about the health of our space assets. We've got to modernize our Air Force, because they've got a lot of old airplanes that we're going to have to recapitalize. We've got to do the same thing with our Navy and our shipbuilding account. We've got to modernize our ground forces as well. So the challenges are huge, which is one reason I've tried to start a discussion about how much we invest in our defense. The security challenges we face are immense, and we underfund some of the capabilities we need to deal with those threats. We need to have a discussion with the American people about what it's going to take to defend our country.
NJ: As part of that discussion, Congress has directed you to undertake another review of "roles and missions" to see whether there is overlap in service missions that can be eliminated for cost savings. Are you worried that such a review will once again pit the services against each other in an acrimonious budget scrum?
Mullen: I came into town in the middle of the last roles-and-missions debate, and all the services essentially had their weapons drawn and pointed at each other, basically saying you're not going to get any of mine. I've had this conversation with the other service chiefs. We as senior leaders are intent on not letting that happen this time. Over the last 15 to 20 years, we've made tremendous progress from a joint perspective, realizing that we all have to work together. That said, we all recognize that resources are very tight and they could get even tighter. In the near future, we're going to have to make some very difficult decisions about where to invest scarce resources. And when you have a shortage of resources, it can sometimes bring out the worst in all of us. So as a senior military leader, I am very anxious to make sure that the [past infighting] doesn't happen again amongst the services.
NJ: In recent negotiations about the status of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations' mandate expires at the end of this year, senior Iraqi officials complained that the United States was driving too hard a bargain that would infringe on Iraqi sovereignty, and that U.S. forces should leave the country if we weren't willing to relax our demands. Do you worry about how such a debate is playing on Capitol Hill?
Mullen: As a senior military adviser, my position is just to state what my requirements are to protect the United States military forces that are in Iraq, and then let the politics play out. Clearly, there are individuals [in Congress] on both sides of the aisle that understand the issue very thoroughly, and they have taken strong positions. I do know that we are going to need some agreement by the end of the year, and I am confident that we will get there, without being specific [about] exactly how we will get there. I have also been struck by a healthy aspect to the public debate in Iraq. Historically, that kind of debate has not taken place in Iraq.
NJ: The debate in Iraq also suggests that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki's government has newfound confidence in Iraqi security forces after recent successful operations in Basra and Sadr City. Do you share the view of some experts that Iraq has turned a corner?
Mullen: In my view, the se-curity environment in Iraq has been set in a very positive direction, certainly compared to where we were sometime ago. That has enabled the politicians to start to reconcile, which they have done by way of passing laws that, in some cases, few would have predicted they'd pass a few months ago. You know, when Prime Minister Maliki took action in Basra, many people criticized him for moving too fast and lacking a plan. Lost in that discussion was the fact that Iraqi security forces moved a division inside of a few days, something they could never have pulled off a year ago. Then there was the operation in Sadr City that you mentioned, and Iraqi security forces are also leading the way in operations up north in Mosul. So while I'm not predicting any turning points, I am encouraged. We are on a good trend line economically, politically, and militarily right now. I'm hopeful that it will continue.
NJ: The Iraq war is obviously a major issue in this year's presidential election; Barack Obama has promised to withdraw combat forces in 16 months, and John McCain says he hopes that most U.S. troops can be out by 2013. Is it possible that the gap between those two positions is narrower than it appears at first glance?
Mullen: Clearly, based on what has happened and the trend line I just talked about, the potential to narrow that gap is pretty significant. Having said that, at a time when there is huge national and international focus on who is going to be the next president, I work very hard to stay out of the political lane. Right now President Bush has given me a mission, and we are executing that mission. When we get a new president I will engage with him, come to understand his policy, give my best advice, and march off accordingly.
NJ: Last year the Pentagon undertook to raise the cost to Iran of its meddling in Iraq, which included training and arming anti-American militias. Have we gained any leverage with Tehran as a result of the arrests of Iranian agents inside Iraq, and has Iran lessened its support for Shiite militias?
Mullen: I haven't seen a lot of mitigation of what the Iranians are doing. We know that Iran's reach is network-like in its state sponsorship of terrorism. They reach heavily into Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, and, obviously, Iraq. And they reach into Afghanistan in supporting their former archenemy, the Taliban. So Iran continues to be of great concern to me. My engagements throughout the region just reaffirm that its neighbors are extremely nervous about Iran. I also believe that Iran is still on a track to develop nuclear weapons. Their achieving that goal has the potential to really destabilize the entire region. If they get nuclear weapons, you have to ask, "Who's next?" If we see a breakout of nuclear weapons powers in the Middle East, that could portend disaster.
NJ: So what is the answer?
Mullen: I think we've got to bring as much international pressure on Iran as possible, recognizing that it's difficult. Given the price of oil, Iran is well resourced, and I have no expectation that those resources are going to dry up in the near future. I also think that a good hedge vis-a-vis Iran is going to be a strong Iraq. Iran would clearly like to see a weak Iraq and a central government in Baghdad that they can control. Sometimes it's difficult, however, to figure out exactly what the Iranian strategy is. We haven't had any relations with them for going on 30 years, so it's hard to understand their thinking.
NJ: Given Iran's role as a spoiler in the region, and with so much now at stake for the United States, doesn't it make sense to directly engage with Iran to discern its motives and explore potential accommodations?
Mullen: I would like to have a healthy dialogue with Iran, but many different administrations over a period of decades have been unable to achieve that. But I do think engagement would offer an opportunity, certainly, to understand each other better. That said, the Iranians have to want to talk too. It can't just be a desire on our part. And the Iranians haven't shown much propensity for dialogue.
NJ: Given the Taliban's recent attacks and gains inside Afghanistan, what assurances did you get on your recent trip to Pakistan that the new government there would work to stop the infiltration of Taliban fighters into Afghanistan from sanctuaries inside its territory?
Mullen: We are clearly concerned about insurgents continuing to cross that porous border to fight and kill Afghan, coalition, and American forces. And we continue to press very hard on the Pakistanis to enforce the kind of restrictions on that border that won't allow that movement. At the same time, we have got a new government in Pakistan, and I believe we need to let that government get its legs. They have only stood up in the last 60 days, and they have huge challenges, not the least of which is this violent extremism. At the same time, insurgents continue to cross that border from Pakistan, and they are coming after us in many cases, and we can't allow that.
NJ: Aren't Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda also regrouping and planning new attacks on the United States from Pakistani territory?
Mullen: The leadership of Al Qaeda is clearly in the FATA [Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas]. That, of course, creates a lot of tension between us and Pakistan. But I believe we still have to respect Pakistan's sovereignty. I can tell you, just coming back from Pakistan, that its leaders understand that they have a very significant extremist problem that needs to be addressed, but it's not going to happen overnight. [The tribal area] is a very challenging region. In the long run, I still believe it's going to be the Pakistani government, security forces, and people that get a handle on this problem, just as I believe it's going to be the Afghan government, security forces, and people who get a grip on it from the other side of the border.
NJ: Granting all that, the new Pakistani government reportedly reached an agreement with senior Taliban leaders that sounds very reminiscent of the failed cease-fire that General Pervez Musharraf made with the Taliban more than a year ago. Why should we expect any different results this time?
Mullen: There are actually multiple pacts currently in play with different groups, not all of which have been finalized and signed. Pakistani officials have said they won't sign an agreement unless it's enforceable, which is our big concern. The past agreements were not enforced. If there is one area I want to focus on, it's enforcement. That is where we've been hurt in the past.