ADMIRAL MICHAEL MULLEN: Well, thank you for that welcome. And, actually, walking into the building before lunch, it had an immediate sense of coming home, only I can’t stay. (Laughter.) To see so many familiar faces and to know a little bit about what goes on during this week, it really is special to spend a few minutes with you. I’d like to say thanks to Mike McGrath for his leadership. This is voluntary; it takes a couple years out of your life and it’s a dedication to our people and our maritime services that is incredibly valuable. And, Mike, to you and to those who assist you, we’re very grateful for all you do and just wanted to say thanks.
It is, however – and I know there are Hill and industry leaders out here as well as military leaders. It is interesting, though, in my life that the moment I left the CNO, when I had the money, when I went to become chairman, where I no longer have the money, I haven’t heard from most of you – (laughter) – in the last year-and-a-half.
I will spend a couple minutes making a few comments about three or four key areas and then open it up for questions. I’m not taking any questions on uniform. (Laughter.) I’ll just let it speak for itself. (Applause.) Obviously – and we are in the season – we are approaching the season for senior military and civilian leadership to testify on the Hill and we’ll spend a fair amount of time in the next few weeks in hearings talking about the ’10 budget.
I’d make a couple comments about that. I’ve been doing budgets and programs, I think the first one I actually spent serious time was back in 1995. And, as I recall, it was POM or PR or whatever, ’97, and I have been involved in every one since that time. So I am not unfamiliar with budget work and programming in programs and the challenges that we have. And I was very much engaged with Secretary of Defense Gates as he worked his way through this ’10 budget proposal, which now rests on the Hill, and will be the subject, I’m sure, of continued important debate as we look at taking care of ourselves and our people in the future.
And I would say that that work, the work that he did, and there were others as well, I see it sought and see it as a level of quality and comprehensiveness in strategically driven unlike that of any of the 13 or 14 POMs I’ve been involved in up to this point. And I was impressed by its comprehensive view, its reach and the very hard decisions that had to be made, or at least recommended to be made, which are included in that budget proposal.
So I am extremely supportive of what the president has submitted, supportive of the work that Secretary Gates did, and also the service chiefs, the military leaders, all of us were intimately engaged throughout the process, and in some cases time and time again, to try to get this right.
It is a very tough subject; it’s one that anybody who knows me, before I had this job, for the last half-a-dozen years, expectations these budgets don’t go up forever. They do go in cycles and we are certainly in a cycle now and have the overarching challenge of the financial crisis that impacts the globe.
So the work was strategy driven, comprehensive, was not a cost-cutting drill in any way shape or form, and as it has been described, really was the goal. The goal was to continue to move the pendulum, not move it all the way over. And as Secretary Gates himself has described, the budget has about 10 percent irregular warfare, 40 percent that is a combination that can go both irregular and conventional, and about half of the budget is focused on conventional warfare. And what I seek as a senior military officer is balance – and that we make sure in our budget deliberations that we take care first and foremost of our people.
I believe the top strategic priority that we have is to make sure we get it right for our people. Those of us who are old enough, going back to the early ’90s when we massively cut the people accounts, we didn’t get it right. And it speaks to the decisions that we make, and the impact that it has decades later, which is why it’s so important to focus on this.
As much as, particularly in this town, we are engaged in our future, we want to make sure we have it right for our future, there is no more important part of that than our people and their families. If we get it right, if we retain the right people, and we’re in our eighth year of war, and it’s a combat-hardened force unlike that which any of us has seen. And if we get it right for our mid-grade NCOs and we get it right for our young officers, we will get it right for the future of this country from a national-security standpoint, and for the capabilities that we need, no matter what the challenge.
And it is not just about those who serve and wear the uniform, because it is also about our families. Those of you – since I’m on the budget, – those of you know who are in the budget world know that we have invested a great deal in programs that make a huge difference to our people and families over the last seven or eight years. Whether its housing, or BAH, or medical, or retirement benefits, or bonuses or you name it – and in the budget world I’d describe it as budgeters and programmers put little trapdoors under all those in the accounts, and as soon as the wind starts blowing another direction, those trapdoors all open up and that money disappears to buy stuff. And I think that is the wrong answer. We have got to hold it in for our people, recognizing that’s the most significant part of our budget each year.
When I was CNO, I estimated between 60 to 70 percent of every dollar we had was connected to our people. That’s uniformed, families, retirees, medical, civilians, reserves – you name it. That’s a big part of our investment. We’ve just got to get it right for the future. So as we move forward under continuing budget pressures, top strategic priority is there. Top operational priority – we must fund the wars we’re in. We cannot send young men and women into harm’s way without the best equipment, the best training. They are sacrificing their lives as we sit here today for our country. We’ve got to make sure that we get that right as well.
And we should be reminded at a luncheon like this, as I know we are, never to forget them – some 240,000 deployed around the world right now, and many of them in harm’s way, prepared to, and in some cases sacrificing their lives so that we can live free and we can be the democratic country that we are. So I’d ask you to always keep them in your thoughts and prayers and their families. One of the reasons we – I emphasize families, or I do this with Deborah so much is because it has been – it is such a strong part of the underpinning that allows us to operate in the times that we’re operating. And these are the most demanding that I’ve seen.
Based on everything I see, it’s – particularly the next two years, the operational tempo’s going to stay about as quick as it is. So there aren’t – I don’t believe there are any shortcuts with respect to our families. As we look at the operational requirements right now, you see us as a nation shifting our weight where the main effort is now Afghanistan. And we’ve got to make it so. It’s an under-resourced economy, of course, war that has been going for years. And we must shift our weight and make it a priority.
And I can tell you that, having grown up in the service, and now spending a year-and-a-half as a chairman, I’m much more joint than I used to be. I understand service cultures much better than I used to, and that we’ve got to create opportunities by breaking down some of those cultures to make sure we resource this war with our people, and our equipment, and our training first ahead of absolutely everything else that we are doing. We have young people who are dying every single day in Afghanistan, or close to it, and in that regard, we have to break down those service cultures to make sure that, no kidding, priority number one is this war fight, not war college, not career paths, not other institutional things that impede us as we look to the war.
And not any one service – every single service is contributing significantly to this war. It was remarked earlier by Mike about individual augmentees, and the Navy and the Air Force in particular have stepped up to this, and that is not going to go away. We’ve got to incorporate more of it and expect more of it until we start to see – in fact – that those pressures are coming off. With Afghanistan in growth and Iraq coming down over the next 24 months, that pressure is going to continue to be there. And in all of this, as I look at our people and I look at our families, the one thing we’ve got to work hardest on is building dwell-time. That’s why every sailor and every airman relieving somebody on the ground builds a little bit more time at home for those who are there in an op tempo that has been incredibly intense for the last seven years.
Additionally – and not just focused operationally now on those in the military because we need to build civilian capacity – we need to have an expeditionary kind of government out of all of our agencies that recruits and retains and rotates people – young people who go do this for a living. That’s the world we live in, and we’re going to be living in that, best I can tell, for the future. One of the examples I like to cite with respect to service cultures and, you know, how to crack it – and it’s not easy – is we have approximately – I think it’s about 800 helicopters in the CENTCOM AOR. We’ve got 6,000 helicopters in our inventory. I need more helicopters in the fight. And we are finding it very difficult – for lots of reasons – to generate more helicopters.
The easy answer is not so easy actually. It’s, let’s go buy more helicopters. That isn’t the answer. The answer is we’ve got to use the ones we have better. And there are countless examples of those kinds of things. So I ask you to, you know, open up your minds. Look for creative ways – all of us in the military, when called to fight in wartime, that’s our top mission. And think like that. We also need – we’re looking, obviously at resetting the force, recapitalizing the force, and we’re at a time now where we’ve worked the force very hard.
And so resourcing that and getting that right is also critically important. Please don’t lose focus on the families of the fallen, the wounded warriors and their families, the injuries they are – that are life changing for them though their dreams have not changed. They still want to contribute. They want to raise their kids in a nice place. They’d like – basically it’s two-income families these days. They’d like an education. They want their kids to go to school and they want to make a difference.
Those dreams haven’t changed, the path has because they’ve been injured. And in my view we cannot do enough for them and that’s a check, we as the United States of America, should write right off the top of our budget to make sure they’re taken care of for the rest of their lives. (Applause.) We’ve made great progress in family programs and support for wounded and understanding these injuries but we’ve got a long way to go. So I’d ask for your continued concerted effort in that regard.
Then the third part of the budget, which I know some of you understand here, is the stuff part; you know, what we buy and how we modernize. We’re at a time now where we’re going to have to prioritize and I think Secretary Gates has sent pretty strong signals. Programs that are spinning out of control just don’t have much of a future. Programs that are, you know, over-required and just increasing in cost don’t have much of a future and clear this focus on balance that we need to make sure that we get that right. And the characteristics many of you know me have heard me talk about this before, but characteristics which our special forces have: an agility, a speed, an adaptability, a precision, a lethality, a small footprint. Those kinds of characteristics are absolutely vital for our military, not just now but in the future.
So I can’t say enough about how pleased I am to be here, if only, you know I would say back in the Navy, for a few minutes. People ask me questions about the Navy, actually sometimes at very high-level meetings in our government and just because I wear this uniform they have an expectation I’ll know the answer. I know a lot more about where my brigade combat teams in the Army, where my marine battalions are and all those things that we need to support them than I do about the Navy right now; it’s just very much a part of my life.
And as I indicated earlier, I haven’t really been involved in money for the last 18 months. I assure you I’m going to be involved in money from now on. So thanks to all you do, thanks to your support for our men and women in uniform – those of you who wear the uniform and are civilians who do so much for our people and our government and our country, I would say thanks as well. And with that I’m happy to take a few questions.
(Applause.)
Q: Admiral Dick Mackey.
ADM. MULLEN: Hi Dick.
Q: Admiral Dick Mackey from Honolulu, I know you’ve had the opportunity to visit Pakistan. We read in the media that the Taliban are increasing their presence within there and strengthening for their fight against us in Afghanistan. Is there anything that we can do or should be doing or can the Pakistanis handle that?
ADM. MULLEN: Well I’m encouraged by the strategic review which took place and focus on the region. I have been there, I think – been to Pakistan, I think, made 10 trips since a year ago February. And what I take away from those trips is what an enormously complex part of the world it is. There are no easy answers here and it also takes a considerable amount of study of history and engagement to start to get your arms around what the challenges are. So doing it from afar is pretty difficult, given the complexity of the country and the region and I think the regional focus is exactly right focus.
I am increasingly concerned about the Taliban and as they move closer to Islamabad. I don’t think that Pakistan is going to fall any time soon; I mean that’s not in the cards. That said, over the past year or year plus that I’ve been going there, there has been a gradual erosion and an increase in the terrorist threat there – and there are an awful lot of Pakistani citizens who are losing their lives – there are a lot of Pakistani military who are losing their lives in this challenge.
And it’s not all about the military; there is a counter-insurgency aspect of this as there has been in Iraq – there is in Iraq, as there is in Afghanistan. And the need to provide security, but not just security; after that create how you hold a territory and then how you build on it – and build is about governance and rule of law, politics and development and how you create an environment in which young people can make good decisions about their future.
I think it’s the most challenging part of the world right now, and there are lots of challenges in the world. So I think that the focus that the president has on it, that our country has on it – Pakistan and Afghanistan – is the right focus and that’s why when I talk about shifting our weight, that’s what we need to do. And resident in Pakistan are those who plotted and planned and killed over 3,000 American citizens – they’re still there – they’re not going away because we just wish them away. And that has to be addressed, and I think the best way we do that in the future is with regional partnerships, not unilaterally at all – it’s the only way that I see we can do it. We’ve got one microphone.
Q: Admiral, thanks so much for being here, Tom Jaffa, the national vice-president of the Navy League, greetings from Seattle. We are particularly interested in developments with our neighbors in China and Korea and, to the extent appropriate, comment on China and their developments with their navy and other things that might be of interest to this audience.
ADM. MULLEN: Well Admiral Roughead just got back from China. I would hope you have an opportunity – I haven’t spoken to him yet about it – I hope you’d have an opportunity to ask him that question. The Pacific Rim, the Pacific region, is a vital region for our globe, and peace and stability in that part of the world is critical. China is a huge economic engine, and they continue to invest in their military. You’ve seen it. I won’t go into the statistics.
They’re developing capabilities that are very maritime-focused – maritime and air-focused – and, in many ways, very much focused on us, and I understand that. That said, any country – every country in the world’s got a right to develop their military as they see fit to provide for their own security. It is that economic engine there that I think is so important for all of us, which is why we’ve got to figure out a way to work with them, and why Admiral Roughead’s visit, in particular, was so important.
And we continue to work our way through that. But it’s going to take all of us, and certainly our partners, like South Korea, like the Japanese, like the Aussies, like New Zealand, like, you know, those regional players that are out there, not unlike Pakistan. The U.S. cannot do this alone. Those days are gone. We must do it with other countries and so that regional focus is really important.
And the challenge that we all have with North Korea, as recently exemplified by what they did, but I think that we’ve got to stay focused on that, and focused in a way that recognizes the capabilities that are being developed, asks questions about those, tries to understand, with China in particular, their strategic intent with those capabilities, because they seem very focused on the United States Navy and our bases that are in that part of the world so that there isn’t any opportunity for miscalculations and a real disaster.
Q: Sir, Adyasa Henchbuk, NECC. I would like to know your thoughts on Navy expeditionary force capabilities –
ADM. MULLEN: On what, sorry?
Q: Navy expeditionary force capabilities. In today’s issues with global war on terrorism, and NECC’s –
ADM. MULLEN: You mean NECC and how it’s doing?
Q: Yes, sir.
ADM. MULLEN: That’s a Navy question, isn’t it?
(Laughter.)
Q: Yes, sir.
ADM. MULLEN: I actually – I cannot speak in depth about this – back to my point about what I spend a lot of time on – but I really do believe that that is a hugely important capability. The riverine piece of that, which is sort of where we started, it has expanded and, I mean, the Navy has been an expeditionary force since our inception. So developing capabilities like that for the fights that we’re in and for the challenges – the engagement as well as the potential fights in the future – is absolutely vital. And I assume it’s pretty robust.
I’m going to be out of altitude and airspeed here shortly on the details of it, but I was – actually, on this most recent trip – I was in Iraq a couple weeks ago – and on the issue of the expeditionary warfare capability – the swift-boat capability, if you will – the squadrons came up with General Odierno, and he wants more and he wants to be able to move it more quickly than he’s been able to. That said a lot about how important that capability is, so I – that was – I get credit for that; quite frankly, that was an idea that I liked that we put in place, and I think a hugely important one for the time that we’re living in and as far into the future as I can see. I assume you have something to do with that command.
Q: Yes, sir.
(Laughter.)
ADM. MULLEN: So I think you’ve got a good future.
Q: Hello.
ADM. MULLEN: Go ahead.
Q: Hello, my name’s Sarah Knoll and I am a senior at Old Dominion University studying Middle Eastern policy and military affairs. And I have a question: Many of the technologies that are on display downstairs are geared towards conventional warfare, so how does the ’10 budget come into play with the technologies downstairs and trying to fight the irregular war, because that’s what we’re fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq?
ADM. MULLEN: I think – I don’t think, I believe that what the secretary of defense has submitted and what the president has recommended to Congress is hugely important in irregular warfare, not just for the fights we’re in now, but for the future, because I think these capabilities will be more and more important over time. And they will continue to evolve. I would – and I haven’t visited downstairs, and I know there will be those here who will be disappointed that I’m not going to walk through the exhibitions because that’s a really – and I would encourage all of you to do that, because I think that’s a really important piece.
I’m struck by a couple of thoughts: What I talked about earlier is 40 percent of who we are can do both. And so the 10 percent, 40 percent, 50 percent equation, to me, is about right. I’m also struck, from my own background, that when we build conventional capabilities and they are robust enough, they have a way of both evolving and flexing to the needs that change over time. I just think we need to be mindful that those needs will continue to change and the priority right now is to continue to swing this pendulum. This is not giving up on conventional warfare, because I think those capabilities are absolutely vital now and in the future, and many of them have adapted to the wars that we are in.
So for that half of the budget, if you will, I think that’s more than adequate in terms of the kinds of capabilities that we’ll need in this – in the warfare that we’re in. And we get stuck sometimes on irregular, conventional – it’s warfare and it changes. And we’ve got to have a broad spectrum of capabilities, low-end to high-end, low-tech to high-tech, that our people can adapt and use, as they are today, in ways that really make a difference so that they can win.
Q: Yes, sir, Bill Gafton, CACI. I’m from Virginia. Admiral, you’ve been around for a while, and I don’t –
ADM. MULLEN: Where in Virginia?
Q: Northern Virginia – the other side of Manassas Battlefield, if you know where that is, sir. You’ve been around for a while – I don’t mean that in a derogatory sense – but you’ve been, now, part of two administrations. And just within 90 days of this administration taking office, they were tested, as I think the vice president had suggested they would be. The Maersk Alabama was a great team effort, and I know that starts at the top.
And as I understand – my understanding is that the mission commanders on scene were given the opportunity to manage the situation and complete their mission – we knew the SEALS were – but the rest of the mission that was going on, the commanders on scene were able to handle it without a lot of constant guidance and reporting – things that can get in the way. It seemed to work very well – very much a team effort, decisions were made early on so things could happen; how did that come about so early? What do you attribute that to, so early in this administration?
ADM. MULLEN: Well, I did this with President Bush and he delegated, understood – worked to understand – the mission, worked to understand the risks, made a decision and turned it over to the commanders to execute. I found no difference in that regard with President Obama, specifically with regards to this mission. I mean, when the full story is told someday, whenever that occurs, it was an exceptionally well-run mission delegated to the commanders, you know, at sea, but the commanders on the ground. And you obviously saw the results of that. And it’s what many of us seek, many of learned a long – many of us, myself included – learned a long time ago, is that 10,000-mile screwdriver doesn’t really work very well, particularly in these areas.
That doesn’t mean we didn’t have robust discussions about it; we did. And there was a number of discussions and these kinds of high-end operations – complex operations – it takes those to wring out all the risks and make sure we all understand them before we ever tell anybody in uniform, again, who are willing to put their lives at risk and die, it’s time to execute. And that was wrung out in a way that was, again, understood – risks understood – and delegated and executed. And the other thing is, many of us know, it always doesn’t work out that way, in terms of execution.
These are enormously complex operations, and I would not describe this as a simple operation in any way, shape or form, nor would I expect the future to be loaded with simple operations. I’ve been involved in a bunch of these and they are very, very complex. But delegated and executed exactly as you or I would want it to be. There was actually one question back there, somebody standing up the whole time. I know I’ve got the hook here. Did they just tell you you couldn’t stand up again? (Laughter.)
Okay again, thanks for all you do to support our men and women in uniform, our sea services. I will wrap up by saying I’m the – actually, that was sort of a pirate question – I’ve got more suggestions on pirates than I’ve got e-mail room on my BlackBerry. But there is one – it’s a very challenging problem. There is one interesting little number – I’m an operations research guy – and so I had someone go run the numbers, how many ships it would take to cover the area effectively to make sure that these events didn’t occur. And ironically, the number turned out to be 1,000.