What Does It Mean to Be a Military Superpower?
A Conversation with Mike Mullen
Festival: 2012
What Does It Mean to Be a Military Superpower?
Aspen Ideas Festival transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for the Aspen Institute, and the accuracy may vary. This text may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of Aspen Institute programming is the video or audio.
THE ASPEN INSTITUTE
ASPEN IDEAS FESTIVAL 2012
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A MILITARY SUPERPOWER?
Greenwald Pavilion
1000 N, Third Street
Aspen, Colorado
Sunday, July 1, 2012
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
ADMIRAL MICHAEL MULLEN
17th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
STEVE INSKEEP
Co-host of Morning Edition
Author of Instant City: Life and Death in Karachi
* * * * *
P R O C E E D I N G S
(5:00 p.m.)
SPEAKER: Thank you very much to Anne and to
your entire family for this great recognition given to our
fellows from around the world who are doing their best to
do their part as leaders and tackling some of the great
challenges of our time. So now without any further ado
here, let me introduce Steve Inskeep.
We -- I don't know about you, but when my alarm
goes off at 5 minutes to 6:00 in the morning, I hear his
voice. So when I finally met him, I said let me close my
eyes and hear your voice. And so Steve Inskeep, come,
please join us. And Steve will be in conversation with
Admiral Mike Mullen, of course the 17th chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. Come on up.
(Applause)
MR. INSKEEP: Okay. Great, great. Okay, can
everybody hear me all right? Excellent. Thanks for
coming this afternoon, coming in from whatever activities
you were involved in. I will very, very briefly introduce
Admiral Mullen. But I feel this man really -- really if
anyone needs no introduction, it is this man. He's been
to this festival before. He's been on your TV screens.
And those who followed national security have
followed his career for years. But I will mention that in
his final year as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
this is a man who oversaw U.S. military activities
relating to, and was the advisor to the President for, the
war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the U.S. intervention
in Libya, and apparently didn't have enough going on at
the time, so he also oversaw the end of the don't-askdon't-
tell policy allowing gays in the military
simultaneously.
(Applause)
MR. INSKEEP: Tremendous amount of business
conducted by Admiral Mullen. I am really honored to be
here in Aspen. I've really enjoyed the discussion so far
and they're going to inform some of what I have to ask
you, Admiral. Earlier today I got to witness the
discussion, the question of which was, does the U.S. have
a responsibility to protect -- you were involved in that
discussion -- does the U.S. basically have the
responsibility to intervene in humanitarian crises in
different parts of the world.
That question was posed, much of it was
discussed. Later in the day, I was able to moderate a
discussion having to do with the technology of war in
which experts agreed that for better or for worse, and it
may be a little of both, it's actually easier for the
United States to begin a military conflict in ways that at
least at first can seem painless to the United States.
And with that backdrop, Admiral, let me ask you
about a concrete situation that's on many people's minds
that gets to the question of when the U.S. can use
military force to intervene and when not. And that is
Syria. Of course, also in your quiet final year as
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, you were overseeing
U.S. responses to the entire Arab Spring.
The U.S. did not at that time choose to
intervene in Syria where things had not advanced nearly as
much as they have now. But has the time come now that it
is both necessary and practical for the United States to
intervene with some kind of force in Syria?
ADM. MULLEN: Well, first of all, thanks for
being here to all of you. Walt, in particular, thanks for
your leadership and Peter and others as well. It's an
honor to be close to the same stage with gentlemen like
Dell (phonetic) and the McNultys, the ladies for what you
do and those who you recognize, who are taking on great
issues. I think the question was does United States --
should the United States -- or does United States have a
responsibility to intervene.
Actually at a little higher level, I think
responsible countries have to figure out this together.
Certainly all of us from a humanitarian standpoint decry
the deaths that occur in a place like Syria or previously
occurred in other countries and are actually occurring in
other places. When the question actually gets posed in
ways, well, if you did Libya, why not Syria and if you're
going to do Syria, why not somewhere else.
And I think that it's very important to have a
very robust discussion and debate to answer that question
almost individually as opposed to have an answer on the
shelf that says gee, civilians, women and kids are getting
killed, we need to go because it's --
MR. INSKEEP: Well, let's look at the individual
case then.
ADM. MULLEN: It's much more complex everywhere
than that. And then -- and in -- specifically with Syria,
I think that it's -- it is, I guess, evolving in a way
where certainly that political leadership, the
international leadership is bringing additional pressure.
It's my view that just because of long-standing
relationships that it is very important to have Russia
involved in this.
And I think to not do so may -- we may achieve
some short-term gains here, but it could be very difficult
not just for Syria but for the region, for the long term.
I -- but I do believe there is a point -- and I -- I'm not
smart enough to figure out what it is -- where the United
States has to say that's enough, where the -- where we've
reached, and you'd like to do it certainly at a time where
you could prevent the loss of a single life.
I think the practical side of that is just -- is
not -- it isn't very reasonable to think that that would
happen. That said, bringing as much pressure as rapidly
as possible on somebody like Assad is absolutely critical.
One of the things that I've learned, particularly as a
senior officer, is that these leaders, whoever they are,
they're not going to go easily.
I think some things Americans don't understand
is the survival mentality of leaders in many places all
over the world who are both dictatorial and who wake up
every single day and the first thing they think about is
how to survive that day. And they -- and their history is
riddled with getting rid of their enemies so that in every
case it seems none of them go either quietly or quickly.
And I'll put Assad -- I don't think anybody
really knows when Assad's going to go. My prediction is
it's longer rather than shorter. I think I believe he
will -- he is doomed to go, if you will, despite recent
discussions that it's possible that he might stay, which
came from Russia as recently I think as yesterday. So I
think it's going to be tougher to see him go than we would
like.
Yet, that additional political pressure and all
the other pressures that we can bring to he and his regime
and his elite are absolute -- is absolutely -- all that
has got to come to bear. And I don't -- I'd be the last
one to say -- and I'm not on the inside anymore, so I
don't know all the circumstances. This is much more
complex than a place like Iraq.
As I've looked at Syria and certainly learned to
look at countries who are in trouble, I've learned you
need to be looking around at the border country. So we
need to be paying attention to what's going on in Iraq
with respect to Syria. We need to be paying attention to
what's going on in Turkey with respect to Syria.
With respect to -- we need to be paying
attention to Jordan that -- the immediate neighbors and
the region as we try to answer this question. And
everybody abhors the loss of life. So certainly we're
near to what should be an intervention at some point. I'm
just not prepared to say that it ought to happen at a
given time.
MR. INSKEEP: Okay. Not necessarily today but
we're near that intervening point. What's practical?
Because if I spoke with a British diplomat, say -- I
haven't recently, maybe they've changed their minds. But
if I -- when I have spoken with in the past, they will say
flat out there's just nothing practical that can be done
here.
ADM. MULLEN: Yeah.
MR. INSKEEP: There's nothing we can do.
ADM. MULLEN: Well, I would disagree with that
from a -- certainly from a security standpoint. There've
been discussions of setting up free zones, if you will, or
zones of protection. And the one that immediately and
publicly comes to mind all the time is the no-fly zone.
I'm not sure that would be -- that would have much effect
per se.
That was the first hue and cry, if you will,
that for Libya and it just -- that just wasn't much of a
threat to the people. The real tough issue is -- in so
many cases is this involves people on the ground and
mostly certainly early it involves troops on the ground,
security troops on the ground. And that's a huge step for
any country.
And I think we need to -- you know, should we
take that, we need to take it very wisely, certainly in
recognition of what we've been through in the last decade
and that anybody that can predict well, it's going to end
in a month or 2 months is going to be -- that's very
difficult to determine as well. So I -- you know, wisdom
and caution here, but at some point, humanitarian losses
have to generate a response.
MR. INSKEEP: I feel like you've answered
another question for me there, because if we think about
Libya, there were no troops on the ground at least
officially.
ADM. MULLEN: Right.
MR. INSKEEP: There were no U.S. casualties --
ADM. MULLEN: There were no U.S. troops on the
ground --
MR. INSKEEP: But you --
ADM. MULLEN: -- not officially, but in fact.
(Laughter)
MR. INSKEEP: Another question answered. This
is great. You're saying that in the case of Syria when
you look at the military situation there, you can't just
do it with some cruise missiles; you can't just do it with
some aircraft. You need --
ADM. MULLEN: Yeah -- this is actually -- and I
mean just -- and just to use militaries that have had
recent focus, the Syrian military is a much better
military than the Libyan military. They've got a
significant capability. And that's something that we all
need to take into consideration as well. So it would be
very, very difficult to do.
The other thing that I've certainly learned in
the last 10 years, would like to have learned more
quickly, is the understanding -- you know, once you take
this step, who are we dealing with? We're having a --
everybody is having a hard time who are the good guys and
who are the bad guys in this case, and also what are the
cultural issues that we need to be paying attention to.
I mean you can sort of physically go in, stop it
physically, be there, but pretty quickly we have to get to
an understanding of the culture of the people that we're
dealing with. And we have not been -- and I'll -- you
know, I'll focus on the military very specifically. We
were nowhere close to where we needed to be from a
cultural understanding and ability to adapt when we went
into these wars.
We're much smarter about that now. But I've
just seen it in so many ways. So we have to pay attention
to all the players, the politics of it. You know, after
you get the killing stopped, you know, then what -- then
what? And that's a question that needs to be asked before
we do it as well.
MR. INSKEEP: You could end up with another
decade-long kind of period like you had before the second -
- between the first and second Iraq wars, couldn't you?
ADM. MULLEN: Well, certainly Libya is an
example that is -- I would like to think is a model in the
sense that, you know, we went in, I thought in a very
precise and supportive way to achieve the outcome. But it
doesn't -- it didn't result in a sort of a 10-year
commitment with troops. We've got a pretty rich history
of going in with some expectation that it's going to be a
short period of time and -- I mean, going back to Bosnia
and they're sort of 10 years at a time.
That's taught me a lot. And so you'd want to
again try to answer the follow-on questions: what after we
stop the killing, who's going to be in charge, how are we
going to make sure we move to the next step, in what is
from a tribal, sectarian, religious mix, much more
complicated than a place like Iraq.
MR. INSKEEP: I can imagine a line of thought in
which you would say, Admiral, there is very little
American support for another war right now. Your analysis
suggest you need troops on the ground in the case of
Syria. You may not get large public support for that,
forget about it, not doable. How would you answer someone
who comes up with that line of reasoning?
ADM. MULLEN: Well, I mean I think -- again, I
think as a country and certainly the national leadership
has to come to grips with a point where it -- that it's --
what's going on is unacceptable. And then you make the
decision. And certainly leaders get paid to make
unpopular decisions and whether it's popular or not, you
know, doesn't drive me that much one way or another. What
really drives me is whether it's the right thing to do and
it's the right time to do it.
MR. INSKEEP: Now, I know you don't want to
generalize too much and in fact the value is the specific
example. But as I was thinking about this case and
thinking about whether the U.S. feels the responsibility,
feels it has the interest to engage in a country like this
or any number of others that came up, I was recalling
Harry S. Truman's statement in an entirely different
context in which he said the President has the power to
keep the country from going to hell.
The Supreme Court proved him wrong in that case.
But I wonder, do you feel the President has the power to
keep the world from going to hell or has the
responsibility to do that?
ADM. MULLEN: I believe for the last 10 to 15
years that we are out of -- clearly out of the bipolar
world and we are much deeper into the multipolar world
than I think we even realize, which, from my point of view
means that it's going to take leaders from many countries
to solve the problems of the world.
And if the United States can no longer do it
alone, our leadership is absolutely vital and we are and
will remain, in my view, a nation of huge consequence.
But it's not just because the United States does anything
particularly unilaterally now that would lead us to a
point where -- or we'd be at a point where everybody else
will just follow. I don't think it's that simple anymore.
I think we're much more integrated and certainly
the economies speak to that than we're used to be. So I
think our leadership is absolutely vital but it entails, I
think, dealing with countries -- I mean we talked about
Russia -- engaging Russia in a way that there is a longterm
solution in Syria as opposed to something that just
happens over the course of a couple weeks and then we'd
figure out the rest.
MR. INSKEEP: Now, let me ask about something
else that was brought up this morning. I think it was
Stephen L. Carter in this morning's panel raised the
question of intervention in places that did not seem to be
immediately vital --
ADM. MULLEN: Yeah.
MR. INSKEEP: -- to the interest of the United
States. And how do we ask people to go and quite possibly
die for something that does not seem vital to the
immediate defense of the United States? He raised the
possibility of raising some separate volunteer military
force that would have signed up for just that mission.
Does that seem remotely practical or remotely necessary to
you?
ADM. MULLEN: It's not even close to who we are.
I mean one of the things -- from my perspective, one of
the things that I worry about a great deal is the United
States military has done extraordinary amount in the last
10 years. But we are less than 1 percent of the
population.
We come from fewer and fewer places and the
American people don't know us. Certainly know we've been
at war, know we've lost over 6,000. We've had tens of
thousands physically wounded and hundreds of thousands
with invisible wounds. But beyond that, this -- the
(inaudible) of -- the stresses on families.
The number of deployments -- if I'm a 5-year-old
son -- a boy or girl in a family of one of these deploying
units, major deploying units for the Army, whose average
deployment, let's say, was 12 months at a time. And my
dad or mom -- but mostly my dad -- has deployed at this
pace. I'm now 15 or 16 years old and my dad has been gone
three, four or five times.
And my whole conscious life -- from the time I
was 5 when I started to figure out there was something out
there, my whole conscious life has been at war. The
United States has never, never experienced that before.
So -- and we see issues -- incredible stresses on families
who -- and now we are coming home -- by no means are we
home, we still have 90,000 troops in Afghanistan.
And I believe we're going to see a couple
decades of challenges associated with the stresses that
we've been just sort of not just dealing with, but the
issues we've been packing away to -- and indicative of
that is the incredible suicide rate that we have both on
the active side, which is even despite all the efforts of
leadership to contain it, is in the Army this year higher
now than it was a year ago.
And another statistic that hasn't gotten much
track and -- but we've tracked some. But we've got 18
vets a day who are killing themselves in the United
States. Now, that's not just from these wars, that's all
vets. So the idea -- I mean at least my belief that we
have to have a military that is representative of our
country, that does what the President of the United States
-- the duly elected President of the United States says we
do.
And then we go through that debate about whether
we're going to intervene and send some place -- send
someone someplace to give his or her life specifically,
that's who we are. I think if the military drifts away,
continues to drift away from the American people main, we
are very well compensated right now.
We've been -- I mean the benefits that we have
have been dramatically increased. And I give Congress in
particular -- they don't get a lot of credit lately -- I
give Congress in particular, along with presidential
leadership from both parties over the course of the last
15 years, a lot of credit for greatly improving the
compensation, the overall benefits package for our
military as we should, as they -- as far as I'm concerned,
rate.
But I do worry that it's just, please go off and
fight our wars, we don't want to be bothered and that the
whole country isn't in. And it gets to, at some point --
we're not there -- but at some point we cross the line
where essentially it's just -- it's not unlike mercenary
forces from other countries which is the force you
described to me a minute ago that, you know, may be
another option.
I think the United States of America, without
its military being a direct output of its people's will
and understanding what that is, is a disaster for us in
the long run.
MR. INSKEEP: I'm glad you raised that subject,
Admiral. You used the phrase -- you suggested that the
military is continuing to drift away from the civilian
populace.
ADM. MULLEN: Yeah.
MR. INSKEEP: Or maybe you'd put it the other
way that the civilians are continuing to drift away from
the military. This is something that has been talked
about for the entire last decade or more of war. In fact
I bet if I came to the last 10 Aspen Ideas Festivals that
there might have been several other occasions where this
statement was made.
But you're saying is it -- do you feel that it's
continuing to get worse, that this gap between civilian
life and military life has not been improving in a
meaningful way?
ADM. MULLEN: I'm not sure. I mean I haven't
seen it widely discussed over the last 10 years.
Certainly I've seen some of that. I think it needs to be
very hotly discussed because I do think -- I see the drift
and it's something that we have to actively address both --
and this is not -- this -- I'm just -- this isn't just
fixed as American people. This is a two-way street.
This is a big responsibility for those of us in
the military. It -- both of us have to communicate and we
have to stop talking to ourselves, which we do a pretty
good job of, and we have to go out to the population that
certainly -- that essentially provides for the United
States military that we have which is the best it's been
in the 43-plus years that I had the privilege of wearing
the uniform -- extraordinary young people.
So that's the concern that I have and then we
need to actively address this. And if we do that, then I
think the problem can easily be rectified.
MR. INSKEEP: Let me ask about another country,
Iran. You served under two presidents, as many people
will know. You were appointed by President Bush and
finished your term under President Obama. We can look and
see that the diplomacy toward Iran has changed in that
time for better or for worse. But I want to ask about one
specific part of the United States approach to Iran.
And I'm going to use the phrase "tripwire" --
the moment at which the United States would decide that it
is valid to launch a military strike against Iran because
of the progress of its nuclear program. In spite of the
differences in diplomacy, in spite of the differences in
rhetoric, I'm just curious if you think the tripwire has
actually changed between the two administrations or not.
ADM. MULLEN: Certainly their capability in
terms of what the Iranians are developing continues -- are
developing with respect to nuclear weapons continues to
evolve. And I've watched that over the course of two
presidents. I'm one who has believed for some time that
either outcome, whether it's a strike to delay it -- and
the conventional wisdom on just about everybody's part is
that a strike would only delay it and in fact could very
much bring a population that isn't very happy with their
government, galvanize them to the leadership.
And then the other option obviously is to have
them have -- is that they have a nuclear weapon, which I
personally think would be a disaster. Because it's --
because of the proliferation that obviously would be tied
to it, as well as what I think and many other people think
would generate a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and
the Middle East has enough challenges.
So there is a very narrow space that these
additional sanctions which went into effect today, that
the diplomatic efforts that are ongoing, the discussions,
the talks which continue to take place although incredibly
unfruitful, that's the space that I still hope can be
successful, that space is narrowing. And then with
respect to a tripwire, there's only one person that has
the tripwire and that's the President of the United States.
And he shouldn't share that with anybody. And I
can tell you he hasn't. Because in the end, the decisions
that get made with respect to this are his and his alone,
well-advised by a host of people that spend an awful lot
of time on it. So it really is -- that's where the
tripwire resides and that's where it should be and I
couldn't tell you where it is.
MR. INSKEEP: Is it the situation where, you
know, the President should be able to change his mind even
if there was a tripwire and even if it was tripped?
ADM. MULLEN: Sure, sure, he's the President.
MR. INSKEEP: And you think that
unpredictability is more useful than predictability?
ADM. MULLEN: Yes, in that regard.
MR. INSKEEP: More strategically useful?
ADM. MULLEN: I do, yeah.
MR. INSKEEP: Let me ask about another thing
that's been -- oh, go ahead.
ADM. MULLEN: Let me go back to one question I
didn't answer.
MR. INSKEEP: Sure, sure, sure.
ADM. MULLEN: And that's the technology piece.
Because it's -- and this is very specifically to the drone
issue right now.
MR. INSKEEP: Yeah.
ADM. MULLEN: I just think we have to be very
balanced in our approach here. We are now entering a
period of very tight budgets throughout the country, and
certainly in defense. And there is a proclivity when we
get into this environment is to sort of push it all to the
new West Bank (phonetic), particularly when the new West
Bank can be much less expensive than some of the more
conventional stuff.
And I just approach this -- I -- my approach is
different. I think, in the uncertainly in the world that
we're living in and the unpredictability that's out there,
we're going to need to continue forward in a balanced way.
And certainly drones and that technology have changed so
many ways in which we fight and will for the future as
well.
But there comes -- there's going to come a time
when our enemies have drones and they will be very
capable. So I think we need to again maybe step back a
little bit and say, what do we really want to use this
technology for, what happens when it gets into the hand of
-- hands of the bad guys because it's unbelievably both
accurate and lethal and it will become more so.
And I've been at the table for the decisions, if
you will, in terms of the terrorists who've been taken out
and I've supported that. But I think -- and then I would
argue drones being one issue or ask to back up a little
bit after 10 or 11 years of war that we as a country kind
of need to step back if we can and say what has happened
to us.
We've been through a lot in 11 years, 11-plus
years of war and it has to do with GTMO and torture and
Abu Ghraib and drones. And despite the polls or despite
the strong views about it, I love this country. And we
are a product of the American people who elect the people
to make these decisions. And you can agree -- disagree or
agree with the decision, but that's the country we are.
so having a -- and I'm starting to see this
specifically about drones -- but having a lively debate
about have we changed, are our values still the same, we
have to remain a principled, value-based country. So one
of the awards a minute ago was for fighting corruption.
We've -- as a country, we've always known we've dealt with
pretty putrid individuals from a corruption standpoint.
I'm not sure we can do that anymore, honestly.
I'm not sure that we can deal with some leaders that we
absolutely know are corrupt to the bone and then hold
ourselves to who we are in the world that we're living.
There's always been corruption. I'm not one that believes
we can eliminate it. We shouldn't do that.
But we ought to be pretty thoughtful about how
we're going to deal with certain levels of corruption in
certain people that we have precise knowledge about,
because in dealing with them, in a way we're sending
messages to people they control that were part of the
problem and they would look at it --
(Applause)
ADM. MULLEN: -- and these are the same people
we're trying to help and they get confused with the
message.
MR. INSKEEP: Did you have a personal experience
that informs that change of view on corruption
specifically?
ADM. MULLEN: Pick a country.
(Laughter)
MR. INSKEEP: Okay, I will. Pakistan.
ADM. MULLEN: No, no, actually I'm fairly
serious on pick a country. I mean I was taken back -- I
mean in the last year I was chairman, I spent a lot of
time focusing on China. It's a country I've actually
believed that most important long-term relationship,
bilateral relationship in the world was going to be the
relationship between the United States and China for lots
of reasons, not least of which is the economies.
And I think economies drive outcomes, quite
frankly, for good or for bad. I was surprised and it's --
and I'm a Pacific guy. I grew up there. I was stationed
out there a lot. But I was actually surprised at the
level of corruption that exists there without pointing or
putting a finger on anybody in particular. I was very
much taken back by that.
So I think -- and certainly, you know, Pakistan
is rife with it, Afghanistan is rife with it. And I'm
just saying -- and this is not something we could address,
you know, overnight. This is something we're going to
have to figure out strategically how do we best do this.
And it goes back to -- even the decision on Syria needs to
be in the vital interest category. I really believe that.
We need to be doing things that are driven by
the interests of our country and of our people. Not
exclusively there, because it's a world that's closer and
closer. But I really think we need to be driven in that
direction. So we're a country that -- and we have our own
challenges with corruption and we have had in the past.
So nobody is clean here.
It's just that in our values and the values that
we espouse, it's certainly something we don't support.
And I think we got to be -- I think we got to look at it
differently than we have in the past.
MR. INSKEEP: Help me get to a deeper level on
this, granting that this would have to be the start of a
discussion and not the end of it. You're urging a
discussion about this. You named three countries --
Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, each of which seems, in one
way or another, vital to the United States at the moment.
And it's easy to say and I presume has been
said, look, we just can't walk away from people around
Hamid Karzai or certain Chinese officials.
ADM. MULLEN: Yeah.
MR. INSKEEP: Give me an example of an
alternative path. What does an alternative path for one
of those countries look like?
ADM. MULLEN: Well, I think -- actually with
them or depending on what we're trying to achieve with a
given country, there needs to be progress in this. There
needs to be a visible signal to the people of those
countries that we are not in the corrupt bed that they see
leading their country. Otherwise they wonder who we are.
I mean the -- I think one of the things that the
U.S. has to pay attention to is how many people around the
world, you know, really don't like us very much. I mean
we read about it. We think we are good people. We don't
do it intentionally, but we're not scoring very high in a
lot of polls. And I think we need to pay attention to
this aspect of that.
So it's not a deal or no deal or an on or off
switch. For me it's much more. It's got to be part of
the solution set so that over a long period of time that
issue takes -- is much more significant -- sorry, much
less significant in countries that are rife with it.
MR. INSKEEP: Is part of this an image problem?
Do you want to make sure that the next time someone like
Hosni Mubarak loses his job, that the United States does
not consequently lose a lot of influence because the U.S.
was associated with this man who is seen as corrupt to his
rule is seen as corrupt?
ADM. MULLEN: Well, I think -- I do think we
need to be thinking long term here and all the things
including leadership changes that are incorporated into
that. And I actually believe that people are pretty
tolerant if they see, you know, efforts are being made and
there is some progress that indicate there will, you know,
be -- could be sustained progress over time.
When I think about Mubarak or some of the other
leaders, again it's back to who they've been. I mean
they've spent their whole life wiping out the leadership
in their country so that nobody could succeed them. So we
shouldn't -- my view is we shouldn't be overly surprised
that when one of them goes, however they go, that there
isn't somebody standing there to take the torch.
This isn't Eastern Europe, you know, that where
there were movements with leaders that we supported that
when the governments finally fell, we said okay, Lech
Wałęsa, you got it, we're going to support you. Those
individuals, at least from my perspective, are not hanging
around in places like Yemen or Syria or even Egypt or
Libya. And you've seen that.
And I think that just means we're going to have
to try to support outcomes there that we -- that are
actually geared to the outcomes the people of those
countries want. That's what the Arab Awakening is all
about. And it's a very difficult task. And it can't --
and there can't be just a military answer to all this.
One of the -- this is -- I mean I think the
title of this hour was what's it like to be a military
superpower in the 21st century. A big piece of it has to
be -- we've got to have a State Department that is
leading. And we've got to have diplomacy that is leading.
We've got to have diplomats and State Department foreign
service officers who are the best we have in the country,
who are compensated for what they do, who have a future,
who are actually game because I've met a lot of them in
the last several years, to make a difference in the future.
So part of that real conundrum right now is we
don't have a Congress that's willing to put much more
money into the State Department and because those --
because the outputs there are sometimes or too often very
difficult to measure. Yet the long-term impact of having
high quality people, you know, leading diplomatically, the
investment is -- versus investment in the military, it's
multiplied by orders of magnitude if you get it right.
MR. INSKEEP: So you expressed some concern --
please go ahead.
(Applause)
MR. INSKEEP: More rounds of applause than I've
seen at any other panel discussion so far. So you've
expressed some concern about the United States'
relationship to corrupt officials, corrupt governments
overseas. If I heard you correctly, Admiral, you also
expressed concern about some of our uses of technology
overseas and you specified drones.
You said you favor a lot of the attacks that
have been taking place, and yet you have a concern. Is
there an instance that you had while on the job that made
you wonder why are we doing this?
ADM. MULLEN: No, I've been supportive of all
the attacks. So I don't want to be misread on that. In
this evolution -- and this is more my own evolution over
the course of these two wars -- a lot has happened to us.
And our tendency is just keep pressing on. Everybody is
busy, we'll just -- we know we'll be okay. I just think
we need to -- and this is a great place to do it.
I think we need to step back and make sure that
we are who we say we are in the future, our values are
still the same and if not, we adjust them accordingly to
deal with the challenges in the future. What I see in the
technology is a capability that has to be very, very well
controlled, period. And the President makes ridiculously
hard decisions all the time.
So I certainly am back to, you know, what I said
before that I've been fine with the fact with how they've
been used and who they've hit. And every single loss of
life, you know, civilian, women, children, is tragic. But
I will tell you there -- despite some views to the
contrary, there have not been many. The precision here is
remarkable.
And it's not just the precision but is -- it is
the decision to use them, yes or no, because that's
incredibly high on the list of am I going to squeeze the
trigger on this one or not. And it's been that way for a
long time. The technology is so good, though, I think we
need to be talking about what are we going to use this for.
I mean there are discussions -- I saw a
discussion in aeronautical the other day that talked
about, you know, looking at, you know, migration, you
know, across the border or looking at some issues even in
our own country in terms of the technology.
MR. INSKEEP: Law enforcement officials, sure --
drones have --
ADM. MULLEN: Exactly. And you may not take me
there, but I'll go there anyway. So --
MR. INSKEEP: Please go ahead.
ADM. MULLEN: No -- I mean there's another
technological challenge that we have in the world of
cyber. I mean there are two -- in my view, two
existential threats to the United States right now. One
are the nuclear weapons the Russians have. And I think
we've got those very well controlled in the TREEs that we
have.
And the other is cyber. And I think we underappreciate
the danger of that. But getting at that really
when you know how technically potent this threat is, is
going to run up right against who we are as Americans. We
had to go through 9/11 to get FISA in order to do what we
needed to do to get -- to obtain information on the
terrorists who were literally in our country.
I think one of the biggest challenges we have is
how do you get the right regulation -- laws and
regulations in place to prevent a cyber 9/11 before we
have one, after which we'll change the laws. But you
know, the horse is sort of out of the barn that --
MR. INSKEEP: You're talking about regulations
to require businesses to be more secure even if that cost
them more money. You're talking about perhaps changes in
the way we think about civil liberties. That's what
you're talking about?
ADM. MULLEN: Absolutely. Absolutely. And -- I
mean and I love those liberties. I'm -- I am not arguing
we should change that at all. But we need to have that
debate about what's going to be acceptable in that space
because the cyber threat itself can stop us in our tracks -
- financial system, transportation system, communication
system. And it's a very potent threat and actually it's
out there now.
MR. INSKEEP: You also raised the question of
the United States using weapons abroad that others might
then turn on us. I wonder if cyber attacks are very
specifically an example of that. We can point to any
number of published reports that deal with the Stuxnet
virus and a program that was directed at Iran's nuclear
program. Are we inviting similar attacks on ourselves by
approving such attacks?
ADM. MULLEN: What I'm =-- as I have watched
this evolve over the last, for me 5 or 6 years, and it
hasn't been a whole lot longer than that, I feel we've
made some significant adjustments on the military side.
And we're in decent shape militarily from a cyber defense
standpoint. We've made some progress on the government
side in terms of cyber defense.
But where we're most vulnerable is in the dotcom
world. And so you talk about the business piece of this.
And what the -- you know, when -- if I took a group of
CEOs to China and put them around the table with the
Chinese leadership, their number one issue would be cyber -
- stop stealing my intellectual property from my business.
And so the dotcom world is incredibly
vulnerable. But to get to that, we will have to put in
place, I think, laws and regulations which are much more
restrictive than on the face of it you would want them to
be. That's just based on the severity of the threat,
specifically. I think the whole issue of cyber, it's a
space that has no rules, it has no boundaries, it moves at
light speed, it's got players in it from state players to
hackers to criminals to a fare-thee-well.
And we -- and I think internationally we're
going to have to figure out how to come to grips with, you
know, a rule set that actually will follow and that will
be enforced. Not just one we put in place and then we
ignore, which is a concern right now, but some kind of --
not -- maybe not treaty but I mean it's almost -- startlike
to lay out the rules of the road for that space.
MR. INSKEEP: You mean negotiate with the
Chinese, for example, try to get rules that everyone --
ADM. MULLEN: With I think the most capable
players, yeah.
MR. INSKEEP: Let me open a related can of
worms, but mention that in a couple of minutes I'm going
to invite your questions. But I do want to ask about one
other thing. There's been much controversy at least in
Washington related to the Stuxnet attacks. David Sanger
of the New York Times wrote a book in which he describes
what was known as the Olympic Games attacks on Iran, links
to the United States, links to Israel, efforts to retard
the progress of Iran's nuclear program by a variety of
acts of sabotage.
This led to fierce criticism of Sanger and of
the administration for supposedly leaking this
information. Without getting into the details of what was
leaked by whom, I just want to know, because you're saying
we need to have a policy, we need to have laws, we need to
have regulations, we need to think about this, how much do
we as citizens need to know about what our government has
been doing in these areas in order to make informed
decisions?
ADM. MULLEN: A lot less than we do.
(Laughter)
ADM. MULLEN: The place has always leaked,
Washington has always leaked. But there is -- you know,
the leaks which are being investigated right now -- and
I've been through this a number of times so I don't want
you to get your hopes up. We don't -- Washington doesn't
have a great history -- I -- we got good investigators on
it, that's not what I mean.
We just have -- we don't have -- we don't have a
great history for finding leakers. What worries me about
leaks of late is the significance of them. You know, the
United States only has so many crown jewels and in -- in
the national security arena. And when we start giving
them away, we make national security -- and what the
President has said and would say is his -- you know, his
number one responsibility, which is to take care of the
American people, we make it much more challenging.
And it's not like when one is out there another
one automatically pops up. The space gets narrow,
narrower and narrower. So we need to be very careful
about that. So I am appalled by the leaks, quite frankly,
and the specificity of them. And I would think -- and in
fact 2 years ago David sat here and interviewed me. And I
think an awful lot of him as a reporter.
When I -- and there is this -- there is a
tantalizing aspect to this, you know, these kind of
details. But I actually think David and many others and
very -- and I found in the Pentagon -- the Pentagon Press
Corps to be an incredibly responsible group who I engaged
all the time. But what -- where I would like -- I would
like to at least have a discussion is could you write the
same story, have the same strategic impact without that
level of detail.
And there might be a little ore work that would
be associated with that. And it may not sell exactly the
same number of books. But it's a tradeoff that I think is
really important not just for David, but for others as
well.
MR. INSKEEP: I wonder if in this particular
case, though, you might say the story was kind of already
out, the virus had escaped that was actually a problem,
there had been news stories about it, people did not know
for sure that it was linked to the United States but
people presumed it was the U.S. so it was real --
ADM. MULLEN: That's the key sentence -- people
did not know for sure.
MR. INSKEEP: Well, that's what I'm wondering.
I'm wondering if a little more detail really does that
much harm.
ADM. MULLEN: It wasn't a little more detail. I
mean that's my point. It was a lot more detail. And this
is, you know, this is about as much as I want to talk
about it.
(Laughter)
MR. INSKEEP: That's fine, Admiral, that's fine.
(Laughter)
MR. INSKEEP: Although -- I mean I think you've
said -- I think -- and I think you've said what you want
to say, although it does raise that question in the end --
we need to make an informed choice, and that's always
going to be a tension, isn't it?
ADM. MULLEN: Sure, sure. Absolutely. And I
think the President understands that. I mean I -- NASA
security leaders understand that.
MR. INSKEEP: I am going to turn to your
questions. I want to do one other thing if I might.
Admiral Mullen concluded his service since the last time
he was on this stage, and has finished his career. And I
wonder if you could just take a moment before we ask
questions to thank this man for his service and for
everyone who's served under him.
(Applause)
ADM. MULLEN: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
MR. INSKEEP: Okay. And now let's go back to
tearing up the man with questions if we can.
(Laughter)
MR. INSKEEP: Here's a gentleman right in the
front row. Go right ahead.
MR. HOWARD: Very quick comment.
MR. INSKEEP: Oh, Brian, why don't you stand up?
Say your name. And if we can do short direct questions,
we get a lot of them in there.
MR. HOWARD: Sure. Chris Howard, I'm the
president of Hampden-Sydney College to the south of
Richmond. I just finished up 13 years of reserve service
and 8 years in the active duty. I'm happy to -- and that
was on 1 June, by the way. I'm done.
ADM. MULLEN: No, you're not.
(Laughter)
MR. HOWARD: But I'm happy to report those 4
years at the Air Force Academy, we beat Navy four times.
ADM. MULLEN: Yeah.
MR. HOWARD: And we got two victories over you
now. So that makes me feel pretty good more important.
Quick comment is that serving in Afghanistan as an
intelligence officer with provisional reconstruction teams
with fine Foreign Service officers. And the last 6 years
in the reserve as an attaché assigned to Africa with fine
Foreign Service officers. So I think we should be
supporting our State Department in the way you described.
The one threat that you've mentioned in the
past, maybe in the Fast Company article is national debt.
I thought at one point you said it's one of the biggest
challenges to our nation. And I was wondering if you
still think that the national debt and the crisis with our
debt and our budget issues are -- is indeed as big a
threat as you've said in other articles.
ADM. MULLEN: Basically, yes. I get asked when
I speak what keeps me awake at night. And I won't
elaborate on these. First of all, actually in this -- and
there's been some work here this week done on this. I
actually think the biggest vulnerability we have as a
country is our education system. And then if we don't --
(Applause)
ADM. MULLEN: -- and if we don't figure that
out, we're going to -- this is a boiling frog -- if we
don't figure this out and do something about it, we're
going to wake up one morning and we're going to wonder
what happened. And we've been talking about it a long
time. So we've got to change that.
Secondly, it is the debt -- fiscal crisis system
that we're in. And I see our reputation erosion --
eroding globally in addition to the challenges that we
have at home about who we are as a result of what we did
in 2008. And I think we got to fix that and quite frankly
put people back to work, not least of whom are veterans
who are coming home to an economy that is not in good
shape to a job -- joblessness level that's unacceptably
high and who've paid an -- made incredible sacrifices.
And we got to make sure we take advantage of
their return in cities and counties throughout the
country. And then the fourth one really is cyber, the
fifth one is vets. Those are the things that actually do
keep me -- and I see Senator Murray in the audience and
nobody's done more to give voice to this. And Senator
Chairwoman, you have got to keep doing this than vets.
I think -- is that you? That's not -- it isn't
you, sorry.
(Laughter)
ADM. MULLEN: You look an awful lot like her. I
thought it was. But we need to keep giving that voice,
because America is going to forget about these wars pretty
quickly.
MR. INSKEEP: The Senator Murray look-alike has
also done a lot of service for the country. Okay, let's
go way to the back, right back there in the blue shirt the
red head, yeah. Is that a blue shirt? Is that a green
shirt?
ADM. MULLEN: Blue.
MR. INSKEEP: Okay.
ADM. MULLEN: It's blue.
MR. INSKEEP: Okay. Go ahead and stand up, say
your name. Just a direct question
MR. LEE: Hi, it's Eric Lee (phonetic), Admiral
Mullen. Thank you. My question -- I have a question
regarding your point about America dealing with or even
supporting foreign leaders who may be seen as corrupt.
If we look back 20 years or 30 years in the
Middle East, if the United States at that time chose not
to back someone like Mubarak or several other leaders in
the Middle East for that matter, what would have been an
alternative U.S. policy to that, and what would have been
a likely outcome for American interest in the Middle East
and for the American people?
ADM. MULLEN: What -- rather than -- I think,
you know, forensics on relationships, historic
relationships would be important as we look to how do we
move forward. So I'm much less -- I don't want to be
critical or overly focused on what has been.
But it has become seemingly much more evident to
me in the countries that I've been dealing with -- and I
wouldn't -- there are others, believe me, the ones -- in
addition to the ones that I've named, that I think we've
got to incorporate that into how we deal with the Mubaraks
of the future starting now in different ways to generate
the kinds of outcomes that we can actually stand up in the
morning, look ourselves in the mirror and say that's the
right outcome.
MR. INSKEEP: Right up here in front.
MS. SELLERS: My name is Pamela Sellers. I'm
with CNN. Thank you for your service, Admiral Mullen, and
thank you, Mr. Inskeep for the interview. About 2 years
ago -- this is a conference about big ideas, and about 2
years ago, you assigned one of your special assistants to
develop a concept behind a new national strategic
narrative in the United States.
ADM. MULLEN: Yeah.
MS. SELLERS: And these two men, Captain Wayne
Porter and Lieutenant Colonel Mykleby came up with an idea
that was similar to George Cannon's principle behind
containment. This is the containment of communism that
some people think developed the military-industrial
complex. These two men came up with some recommendations
and it was published by the Wilson Center, and I'm sorry
that Congressman Harman has left, because she supports it,
is very proud of this.
The findings that these two gentlemen -- it was
a nonpolitical doctrine as a matter of fact. They
recommended it was in the national interest for the
country to develop a concept of sustainability as opposed
to containment, containment of communism, containment of
enemies. They asked that -- they recommended that we have
a new energy policy to avoid security threats, a new
policy as opposed to oil.
They made a recommendation on education. Onethird
of American high-schoolers drop out of school. That
mean they can never sign up for the military. That makes
this a national security interest issue.
And then finally, they suggested that the
country needed to develop a concept that built more on
social capital. These all fall in line with many of the
things that you have said. The question I have for you is
it seems like you stepped away from this. They put this
out. It got play in the New York Times, Ferry Zakarti
(phonetic) reported it.
But do you -- what was your response to this
narrative? What has been the response to this narrative,
and is there any sort of leadership that is trying to put
these recommendations into place, provide a cohesive
leadership to put these recommendations in place?
ADM. MULLEN: I think it's a terrific piece of
work and I support it very strongly. And you talk about --
I would call those four pillars. And I would add to that
that we've moved into an era of influence, not control.
That's not easy for us to just sort of let go and look at
try to influence outcomes. You have awakening as a great
example as opposed to try to control outcomes which is
what we've done historically.
So I'm very -- it's a great piece of work and I
very strongly support it. That kind of work has to hit at
the right place at the right time and obviously be taken
forward. And so from my perspective -- and I certainly
couldn't do it when I was in the military -- from my
perspective, you know, I tried to speak to it just as I
have this afternoon in ways that hopefully start to move
the country, and that if I can, you know, in that
direction, because I have strong beliefs about who we are
as a country and we're a great country and I have great --
I'm very optimistic about the future. Long term, we've
got some severe problems, we got to be -- continue to work
on right now.
MR. INSKEEP: Let's go to the back right there,
ma'am. Yeah, go ahead.
SPEAKER: I wondered, Admiral Mullen, what you
feel about a draft, a national draft service and/or
military?
ADM. MULLEN: I feel very strongly that national
service for any -- for every 18- to 24-year-old in this
country would be terrific. I'm not a big -- I get asked
about the draft, do we need it. This is the best military
we've had in the 4-1/2 decades that I had the privilege of
wearing the uniform. They have been extraordinary. I
came from the draft days. So I wouldn't want to go back
to that.
I want a national service that would have the
same effect of a draft where everybody's in, all
geographic locations in the country, all classes in the
country, so everybody's exposed to us. And as I've seen
in the military my whole life is, you know, young men and
women have a way of growing up after they've been in the
military 2 or 3 or 4 years and maturing. And I'm very
fond of pointing out that in these wars, the average age
of any unit in the military is about 21 years old.
They have carried extraordinary
responsibilities, and I say that to parents with many 20-
and 21-year-olds, you know, that -- and sometimes they --
and they can't believe their kids have grown and matured
and executed at such a high level, and they are so proud
of what they've done.
MR. INSKEEP: Gentleman over on the far side of
the room there, please go right ahead. No, you -- that's
you. You're the relatively far side of the room.
MR. RASTEGAR: Farshad Rastegar with Relief
International. I wonder if you can speak back to Syria,
but speak to the competition between Iran and Saudi Arabia
and I posit that too often we continue to sort of design
our policies counter to Iran, but not necessarily
considered of, you know, Saudi or Wahhabism or 9/11 et
cetera, et cetera.
ADM. MULLEN: And certainly that's -- and I mean
I know our government leaders have continued -- have
focused on not just the upside, positive side of the
relationship with Saudi Arabia, but certainly the
challenges that exist with respect to both funding
terrorism and Wahhabism, et cetera. And that's -- in my
view, we have to continue to do that. We -- that's
critically important as we look to continued leadership in
the region.
Certainty the whole issue, not the whole issue,
but a significant part of the issue is obviously the --
you know, the Sunni-Shi'a tension of the kind that has
been there a long time and that is associated with
activities and actions that are taken in that part of the
world and I -- I mean for the sake of the region and for
really the globe, you know, though leaders have to step
forward into uncomfortable space and make decisions so
that these threats and these conflicts, potential
conflicts don't actually happen.
We talk in our country about working now or not
working now across the aisle, if you will. That aisle in
our country has become a, you know, a divide. It's no
longer an aisle and we've got to close that. And leaders,
I think, get paid to make hard decisions and oftentimes go
in space that they hadn't anticipated they have to be in.
And I'm not just talking about my own country;
I'm talking about countries all over the world, including
leaders in -- you know, the new leader of Egypt, who will
have challenges like this. Now that the Moslem
brotherhood is running the country or certainly the
elected leader is running the country, that's going to be
a whole lot different than the work they were doing before.
MR. INSKEEP: Let's get two or three more
questions, if we can. Oh, please go right ahead, sir.
We'll have one panelist to talk with another panelist.
Great.
MR. LONGETTI: Delia Longetti (phonetic).
Admiral Mullen, I wanted to do a quick follow-up on the
comments you made about national service for kids, 18-21.
What is the mechanism, short of a draft, that will achieve
that? And the original question I wanted to ask you is
whether you're considering running for political office?
ADM. MULLEN: The answer to the second question
is no. The first question is, I think, the only way we
could do that is pass a law that requires national
service. And part of that -- I mean we'd have to work our
way through is a draft part of -- in other words, or in
the National Service Act, if you will, and I haven't
worked my way through this, you know, one of the options
is to go in the military. So -- but it would require a
law.
MR. INSKEEP: Another might be civilian work,
that's what you're saying?
ADM. MULLEN: Oh, yeah -- no. This -- yeah. To
not be misunderstood, to make sure I'm not misunderstood
on this, this is community service. It's state community
service; it's national community service; it's the Peace
Corps; it's the U.N. I mean you name where you would go
to serve and to include the military if that's what you
wanted to do, that's how I look at it.
And just because you asked a question, and you
are from Nigeria, as I understand it, which is where
you've gone back and I'm delighted you have gone back to
your own country, because there are many challenges there.
I don't have to tell you that, but one of my worries about
the budget challenges that we have right now, there are
going to be parts of the world that the United States is
going to be less visible in, and I'm concerned -- at least
on the military side, and for us, I'm concerned that it's
going to be Africa and Latin America.
That doesn't mean we're going to ignore them,
but it's just physically we're just not going to have the
people and the presence that we've had. But that doesn't
mean -- that doesn't mean we don't care, first of all, but
secondly it places us a larger burden on U.N. and I've
actually talked to a couple of organizations, to a couple
of groups today that were coming out of South Africa in
terms of leadership training to go make a difference
across the entire continent.
And I'm very encouraged by what I hear, but I
think it's going to take -- it's going to be -- there will
be an additional burden, if you will, for you and people
like you to lead in the future to conquer these very
difficult challenges from a continent with incredible
people, incredible warmth, great resources and great,
great challenges.
MR. INSKEEP: Let's go to the woman in the red
shirt right over here.
MS. SABEN: Admiral, hi, Allen Saben (phonetic).
I was curious who has the budget, the responsibility and
the capacity to treat the thousands of soldiers coming
home with PTSD over the long term and their spouses
perhaps?
ADM. MULLEN: Well, I believe we as country have
the wherewithal and the responsibility to take care of
these young people who've done so much. So it's really
the government that's got that. I actually believe the
resources are there. It's a question of how you apply
them and we've got many good programs where we have huge
challenges, and it's not just the posttraumatic stress
challenges that we have or the visible wounds.
It's the traumatic brain injury, mild and
serious that we have, and it is the challenges that are
associated with that -- what we've been compartmentalizing
for the last 10 years as we've deployed so much and just
put the challenges away in interpersonal relationships and
families.
So I was talking to somebody last week about
this and the suicide rate -- who's working on the suicide
issue for the chief of staff in the army and the suicide
number this -- last month was up, either 12 or 18 from a
year ago despite all the work, but one of the things we're
starting to see is we've got soldiers home now. When they
were deployed, their pay is tax-free, they're getting
hazardous duty pay. So that financial input is now gone.
So we're starting to see financial pressures
that we hadn't seen in many years because the income is
now reduced from what they had specifically. We've got a
huge challenge with the stigma of asking for help. My own
view of this is in the long run, this has got to be solved
in the family, nor with an individual. My wife, Deborah
(phonetic), works very hard and has interacted with many,
many spouses who have what they call secondary
posttraumatic stress.
We issued over 300,000 prescriptions for
dependent children under 18 for mental health conditions
last -- I think it was 2 years ago now, 2010. So I think
we have the resources within actually the Department of
Defense and the VA and in communities throughout the
country.
All -- I think these challenges are gong to have
to be met and mostly led in communities throughout the
country and I've tried to galvanize local leadership to --
this is what I call the sea of goodwill. I know the
American people will support our men and women and their
families. How do we make that connection and we're
working hard to try to do it.
MR. INSKEEP: Final question. Way back there,
sir, in the red.
MR. BERGER: Bruce Berger (phonetic). Thank you
for your service to the country.
ADM. MULLEN: Thanks, Bruce.
MR. BERGER: Question, the reliance on
technology, satellite communications, special forces. Do -
- how are we addressing the future or the potential of
another major land war in the future? Or is that
something we're not dealing with?
ADM. MULLEN: Well, I'm -- you know, Bob Gates
is famous for having said something along the lines, I
think the next secretary of Defense or future secretary of
Defense would be nuts to put another 100,000 forces in the
country. At the same time, he said and I've said many
times, we're (inaudible) for about the last 20 about
predicting where we'd go and what we'd do it with. Which
then from my perspective argues for a balanced approach to
this, to include ground forces.
So as budget pressures grow, we're going to have
the right level of ground forces for what we think we
might need for the future. And it needs to be a
combination of Active Duty and Reserves. You know, our
Reserve, our Guard and Reserve have been incredible in
these wars and we've got to restore our strategic reserve,
because we've been using the Reserve constantly, the Guard
and Reserve and some balance between the Guard -- the
strategic Guard and Reserve and an operational Guard and
Reserve, but to make sure we -- our previous bets just
haven't been very good.
So to say it's all going to happen from the sea
or from the air or from space, I think, is a high-risk
strategy. So I think we need to be balanced in the
future. Will we get smaller in the ground forces? Yes, I
think we will. The Army is coming down; the Marine Corps
is coming down. I think we have to be pretty careful
about how small we get given the world that we're living
in.
We also have after wars -- and I don't have a
problem with this, have a tendency as a country to isolate
-- and this is not post-Vietnam or even post-Desert Storm
or post-World War II. We've got huge challenges which
remain out there that we are, I think, responsible to help
lead in and we just can't -- in the world that we're
living in, we just can't contract and take a decade off.
MR. INSKEEP: Admiral Mullen, thanks very much.
(Applause)
ADM. MULLEN: Thanks, Steve.
MR. INSKEEP: Thanks for your questions.
(Applause)
* * * * *
Audio/Video: Security
Not even one percent of the US population has served in the military, but the return of veterans from war has a ripple...
See more
In addition to having a global perspective, the United States must establish a comprehensive energy policy. If not,...
See more
Paula Broadwell and Michael O'Hanlon discuss her book, of which O'Hanlon wrote: “This is the best book yet on General...
See more
Pages
Fact: Security
The U.S. Army was in charge of exploring and mapping America. The Lewis and Clark Expedition was an all Army affair. Army officers were the first Americans to see such landmarks as Pike's Peak and the Grand Canyon.
—Military.com, March 2012