DOD COUNSEL SAYS SGT. BERGDAHL PRISONER SWAP PART OF LONG TRADITION DURING WARTIME

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 

Right:  Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Defense Department General Counsel Stephen W. Preston during testimony June 11, 2014, at a House Armed Services Committee hearing on the transfer of five detainees from the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. DOD photo by Marine Corps Sgt. Aaron Hostutler.  

Prisoner Swap Part of Long Tradition, DOD Counsel Says
By Claudette Roulo

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, June 11, 2014 – The exchange that led to the return of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is part of a tradition of prisoner exchanges between opposing forces during wartime, Defense Department General Counsel Stephen W. Preston told members of Congress today.

During a hearing called by the House Armed Services Committee to discuss the prisoner swap, Preston explained that it wasn’t necessary to classify detainees as prisoners of war to make them eligible for such an exchange.

“What we had here were detained combatants held by opposing forces in the same armed conflict,” he said.

“Now, it is true that the Taliban is not the conventional nation state that has been party to conventional armed conflict in the past,” Preston said. “But it's not the character of the holding party, it's the character of the detainee that inspires and motivates our commitment to the recovery of service members held abroad.”
The exchange doesn’t set a precedent, he added, because a long tradition of prisoner swaps already existed at the time of the exchange.

A potential exchange of the five Taliban detainees for Bergdahl’s release was first discussed with Taliban representatives in late 2011, and Congress was briefed on the dialogue in November of that year, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told the committee members.

After sporadic discussions between the United States and Taliban representatives broke down in March 2012, the government of Qatar offered in September 2013 to act as an intermediary, he said.

“But there was never a point in time where, either directly or through the Qataris, we were negotiating with Haqqani,” Preston said. “There were no demands made or concessions made by or to the Haqqanis as far as I'm aware of, period.”
Hagel told Congress that a proof-of-life video was received in January that showed Bergdahl’s physical and emotional health to have deteriorated considerably in comparison to earlier videos. Bergdahl’s condition in the video intensified the discussions with Qatar about security assurances if Taliban prisoners were to be placed in their custody, the defense secretary noted.
As discussions with the Qataris wrapped up -- but before any agreement was signed, Preston said -- the department sought authoritative guidance from the Justice Department on the legal and constitutional issues around the requirements for Congressional notification.

Section 1035 of the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act required that several congressional committees be notified at least 30 days before any transfer of prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. However, the section does not provide for time-sensitive negotiations, the general counsel said.

With only a small window of opportunity to rescue Bergdahl, and with negotiations in an extraordinarily fragile state, “the administration determined that it was necessary to forego the full 30-day formal notice to the eight committees,” Preston said.

The concern was that delaying the transfer for 30 days to notify Congress “would scuttle the deal and could possibly further endanger … Bergdahl,” he said.
Less than 96 hours passed between the signing of the agreement on May 27 and the actual prisoner exchange on May 31, Preston noted.

The president has a constitutional duty to protect American citizens, the general counsel said, and when this duty conflicts with a statute, the statute must yield, “either as a matter of interpretation or through the application of separation-of-powers principles.”

Preston said in response to questioning that it is not true that the government will be obligated to release Guantanamo detainees who were captured in Afghanistan when the combat mission there ends this year. Both the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists and international laws governing armed conflict provide the government with the authority to hold these detainees until the cessation of hostilities with the Taliban and al-Qaida, he said.

“There will come a point in time where the armed conflicts we're engaged in with the Taliban and al-Qaida and their associates come to an end, and at that point, the law of war rationale for continuing to hold these unprivileged belligerents would end -- unless there were some other basis for continuing to hold them, such as prosecution,” Preston said.

DEFENSE SECRETARY DEFENDS BERGDAHL RECOVERY BEFORE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 

Hagel: Bergdahl Recovery Consistent With U.S. Laws, Values

By Jim Garamone

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, June 11, 2014 – The recovery of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl from the Taliban was fully consistent with U.S. law, U.S. interests and the U.S. military’s core values, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told the House Armed Services Committee today.

The secretary assured the committee that he would not sign off on any decision that wasn’t in the best interests of the United States.

“The prisoner exchange was done legally, with substantial mitigation of risk and in the national interest of our country,” Hagel said.

Since his disappearance in 2009, Bergdahl was officially listed as missing-captured. “No charges were ever brought against him, and there are no charges pending now,” Hagel said, noting that all aspects of government worked to recover the sergeant.

“We never stopped trying to get him back, as the Congress knows, because he is a soldier in the United States Army,” the secretary said.

Any questions about the sergeant’s capture are separate from these facts, Hagel said, “because we do whatever it takes to recover any U.S. service member held in captivity. This pledge is woven into the fabric of our nation and its military.”
In 2011, the Obama administration conducted talks with the Taliban on a detainee exchange involving the five Taliban detainees who ultimately were transferred after the release of Bergdahl. Congress knew of these talks and knew the Taliban broke off these discussions in March 2012, the secretary said. “We have not had direct talks with the Taliban since this time,” he added.

In September 2013, the Qatari government offered to serve as an intermediary with the Taliban, Hagel said, and the United States requested a proof-of-life video of the sergeant.

“In January, we received that video, and it was disturbing,” the secretary said. “It showed a deterioration in his physical appearance and mental state compared to previous videos. The intelligence community carefully analyzed it and concluded that Sergeant Bergdahl’s health was poor, and possibly declining.”

Acting on the exchange therefore became more urgent, he said.

On May 12, the United States and Qatar signed a memorandum of understanding detailing the specific security measures that would be undertaken and enforced by Qatar if any Taliban detainees were transferred to their custody, Hagel told the House panel. These include risk mitigation measures and Qatar’s commitments to travel restrictions, monitoring, information sharing, limitations on activities and more, he said.

Soon after the memo was signed, the secretary continued, Qatari intermediaries said that time was not an ally. “This indicated that the risks to Sergeant Bergdahl’s safety were growing,” Hagel said. “We moved forward with indirect negotiations on how to carry out the exchange of five detainees, and agreed to the mechanics of the exchange on the morning of May 27, following three days of intensive talks.”
Also on May 27, President Barack Obama received a personal commitment from Qatari Amir Tamim bin Hamid al Thani to uphold and enforce the security arrangements. The final decision was made to move forward with the exchange, Hagel said. With recovery imminent, U.S. officials were concerned that any delay, or any leaks, could derail the deal and further endanger Bergdahl, he told the panel.

“We were told by the Qataris that a leak would end the negotiations for Bergdahl’s release,” Hagel said. “We also knew that he would be extremely vulnerable during any movement, and our military personnel conducting the handoff would be exposed to a possible ambush or other deadly scenarios in very dangerous territory. And we had been given no information on where the handoff would occur.”

This was why the military moved “quickly, efficiently, and quietly,” Hagel said. “We believed this exchange was our last, best opportunity to free him.”
After the exchange was set in motion, Hagel said, only 96 hours passed before Bergdahl was in American hands. Uncertainty ruled, he acknowledged.
“We did not know the general area of the handoff until 24 hours before,” Hagel said. “We did not know the precise location until one hour before. And we did not know until the moment Sergeant Bergdahl was handed over safely to U.S. special operations forces that the Taliban would hold up their end of the deal. So it wasn’t until we recovered Bergdahl on May 31 that we moved ahead with the transfer of the five Guantanamo detainees.”

Hagel called Obama’s decision to move forward with the transfer of these detainees a tough call. “But I support it and stand by it,” he added.
The five Afghan Taliban members exchanged for Bergdahl are enemy belligerents and were held in the facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. “They have not been implicated in any attacks against the United States, and we had no basis to prosecute them in a federal court or military commission,” Hagel said. “It was appropriate to consider them for an exchange. And if any of these detainees ever try to rejoin the fight, they would be doing so at their own peril.

“The secretary of state, the attorney general, the secretary of homeland security, the director of national intelligence, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff all supported this transfer,” the secretary continued. “There was complete unanimity on this decision. The president and I would not have moved forward unless we had complete confidence that we were acting lawfully, in the national interest, and in the best traditions of our military.”

Specifically, the process complied with the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 by determining that the risk the detainees posed to the United States, American citizens and U.S. interests was substantially mitigated and that the transfer was in the national security interests of the United States, Hagel said, and the recovery fulfilled the U.S. commitment to recover all military personnel held captive.

“We followed the precedent of past wartime prisoner exchanges, a practice in our country that dates back to the Revolutionary War and has occurred in most wars America has fought,” Hagel said.

Bergdahl was not a hostage, but a detained combatant being held by an enemy force, he noted. That being the case, it “was fully consistent with our long-standing policy not to offer concessions to hostage takers,” the secretary said. “The Taliban is our enemy, and we are engaged in an armed conflict with them.”
The effort was consistent with previous congressional briefings, “reflecting our intent to conduct a transfer of this nature with these particular five individuals,” Hagel said.

The administration was supposed to provide 30 days advance notice to Congress before transferring any individuals held at Guantanamo, but Hagel said the circumstances required quick action.

“Under these exceptional circumstances -- a fleeting opportunity to protect the life of an American service member held captive and in danger -- the national security team and the president agreed that we needed to act swiftly,” he said. “In consultation with the Department of Justice, the administration concluded that the transfer of the five could lawfully proceed.”

DEFENSE SECRETARY HAGEL UNHAPPY WITH HOUSE AREMED SERVICES COMMITTEE BUDGET CHOICES

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT DEFENSE 

Hagel ‘Not Pleased’ About Budget Direction in Congress

By Jim Garamone

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, May 9, 2014 – Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is not pleased about the House Armed Services Committee’s mark-up of the fiscal year 2015 Defense Department budget request, Pentagon Press Secretary Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby said today.

The committee, he said, disregarded many of DOD’s recommendations, including proposing to continue funding for the A-10 Warthog and rejecting a department request to limit military pay and conduct a new round of base realignments and closures.

“Even before the threat of sequestration,” Kirby told reporters, “this department had to -- and was -- making some pretty difficult choices, as we knew we would have to when you come out of over a decade of war.”

The secretary led a budget process this year and used the Quadrennial Defense Review and codification of the new defense strategy to craft the department’s request, Kirby said. This made for tough, difficult and strategic choices that took into consideration the world today and possible future threats.

The budget as submitted calls for finding efficiencies and savings and preserving readiness, the admiral said.

“Without speaking specifically to pending legislation, [Hagel’s] hope is that the Congress will see the wisdom in the strategic choices, the hard decisions that he has made,” Kirby said. “And his expectation is that they’ll be willing to make the same ones.

“I can tell you that the secretary was certainly not pleased by the House Armed Services Committee mark-up of the budget,” Kirby continued. “He … resolutely stands by the budget that we submitted because it was strategic in tone and because it was tied to a defense strategy that made sense.”

Kirby noted the budget process is still in its early phases. A final bill will not emerge from both houses of Congress for months and could change significantly.
“The secretary certainly hopes that when it gets to the Senate and into conference, that the Congress will prove capable of seeing the wisdom, again, in the decisions that we’ve made and being willing to make those same tough choices and putting national security first over parochial interests,” he said.

SECRETARY KERRY'S TESTIMONY ABOUT SYRIA BEFORE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Proposed Authorization to Use Military Force in Syria
Testimony
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Opening Remarks Before the House Armed Services Committee
Washington, DC
September 10, 2013

Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, and distinguished members of the committee, I’m privileged to be here this morning with Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey, and we are all of us – all three of us – very much looking forward to a conversation with you about this complicated, challenging, but critical issue that our country faces.

And we don’t come to you lightly. I think Secretary Hagel and I particularly come here with an enormous amount of respect for this process, for what each of you go through at home, and the challenges you face with constituents, and the complexity of this particular issue. So this is good. It’s good that we’re here, and we look forward to the conversation.

And as we convene at this hearing, it is no exaggeration at all to say to you that the world is watching. And they’re watching not just to see what we decide; they’re watching to see how we decide it, and whether or not we have the ability at this critical time when so much is on the line in so many parts of the world. As challenges to governance, writ large, it’s important that we show the world that we actually do have the ability to, hopefully, speak with one voice. And we believe that that can make a difference.

Needless to say, this is one of the most important decisions that any member of Congress makes during the course of their service. And we all want to make sure we leave plenty of time here for discussion. Obviously, this is a very large committee, and so we’ll try to summarize in these comments and give the opportunity for the Q&A.

But I just want to open with a few comments about questions I’m hearing from many of your colleagues, and obviously, from the American people and what we read in the news.

First, people ask me – and they ask you, I know – why we are choosing to have a debate on Syria at a time when there’s so much that we need to be doing here at home. And we all know what that agenda is. Let me assure you, the President of the United States didn’t wake up one day and just kind of flippantly say, “Let’s go take military action in Syria.” He didn’t choose this. We didn’t choose this. We’re here today because Bashar al-Assad, a dictator who has chosen to meet the requests for reform in his country with bullets and bombs and napalm and gas, because he made a decision to use the world’s most heinous weapons to murder more than – in one instance – more than 1,400 innocent people, including more than 400 children. He and his regime made a choice, and President Obama believes – and all of us at this table believe – that we have no choice but to respond.

Now, to those who doubt whether Assad’s actions have to have consequences, remember that our inaction absolutely is guaranteed to bring worse consequences. You, every one of you here – we, all of us – America will face this. If not today, somewhere down the line when the permissiveness of not acting now gives Assad license to go do what he wants – and threaten Israel, threaten Jordan, threaten Lebanon, create greater instability in a region already wracked by instability, where stability is one of the greatest priorities of our foreign policy and of our national security interest.

And that brings me to the second question that I’ve heard lately, which is sort of: What’s really at stake here? Does this really affect us? I met earlier today with Steve Chabot and had a good conversation. I asked him, “What are you hearing?” I know what you’re all hearing. The instant reaction of a lot of Americans anywhere in our country is, “Woah, we don’t want to go to war again. We don’t want to Iraq. We don’t want to go to Afghanistan. We’ve seen how those turned out.” I get it, and I’ll speak to that in a minute.

But I want to make it clear at the outset, as each of us at this table want to make it clear, that what Assad has done directly affects America’s security – America’s security. We have a huge national interest in containing all weapons of mass destruction. And the use of gas is a weapon of mass destruction. Allowing those weapons to be used with impunity would be an enormous chink in our armor that we have built up over years against proliferation. Think about it. Our own troops benefit from that prohibition against chemical weapons.

I mentioned yesterday in the briefing – many of you were there, and some of you I notice from decorations, otherwise I know many of you have served in the military, some of you still in the reserves. And you know the training we used to go through when you’re learning. And I went to Chemical, Nuclear, Biological Warfare school, and I remember going into a room and a gas mask, and they make you take it off, and you see how long you can do it. It ain’t for long.

Those weapons have been outlawed, and our troops, in all of the wars we fought since World War I, have never been subjected to it because we stand up for that prohibition. There’s a reason for that. If we don’t answer Assad today, we will irreparably damage a century-old standard that has protected American troops in war. So to every one of your constituents, if they were to say to you, “Why did you vote for this even though we said we don’t want to go to war?” Because you want to protect American troops, because you want to protect America’s prohibition and the world’s prohibition against these weapons.

The stability of this region is also in our direct security interest. Our allies, our friends in Israel, Jordan, and Turkey, are, all of them, just a strong wind away from being injured themselves or potentially from a purposeful attack. Failure to act now will make this already volatile neighborhood even more combustible, and it will almost certainly pave the way for a more serious challenge in the future. And you can just ask our friends in Israel or elsewhere. In Israel, they can’t get enough gas masks. And there’s a reason that the Prime Minister has said this matters, this decision matters. It’s called Iran. Iran looms out there with its potential – with its nuclear program and the challenge we have been facing. And that moment is coming closer in terms of a decision. They’re watching what we do here. They’re watching what you do and whether or not this means something.

If we choose not to act, we will be sending a message to Iran of American ambivalence, American weakness. It will raise the question – I’ve heard this question. As Secretary of State as I meet with people and they ask us about sort of our long-term interests and the future with respect to Iran, they’ve asked me many times, “Do you really mean what you say? Are you really going to do something?” They ask whether or not the United States is committed, and they ask us also if the President cuts a deal will the Congress back it up? Can he deliver? This is all integrated. I have no doubt – I’ve talked to Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday – Israel does not want to be in the middle of this. But we know that their security is at risk and the region is at risk.

I also want to remind you, you have already spoken to this. Your word is on the line, too. You passed the Syria Accountability Act. And that act clearly states that Syria’s chemical weapons threaten the security of the Middle East. That’s in plain writing. It’s in the act. You voted for it. We’ve already decided these chemical weapons are important to the security of our nation. I quote, “The national security interests of the United States are – the national security interests of the United States are at risk with the weapons of mass – the chemical weapons of Syria.”

The fourth question I’ve been asked a lot of times is why diplomacy isn’t changing this dynamic. Isn’t there some alternative that could avoid this? And I want to emphasize on behalf of President Obama, President Obama’s first priority throughout this process has been and is diplomacy. Diplomacy is our first resort, and we have brought this issue to the United Nations Security Council on many occasions. We have sent direct messages to Syria, and we’ve had Syria’s allies bring them direct messages: Don’t do this. Don’t use these weapons. All to date, to no avail.

In the last three years, Russia and China have vetoed three Security Council resolutions condemning the regime for inciting violence or resolutions that simply promote a political solution to the dialogue – to the conflict. Russia has even blocked press releases – press releases that do nothing more than express humanitarian concern for what is happening in Syria, or merely condemn the generic use of chemical weapons, not even assigning blame. They have blocked them. We’ve brought these concerns to the United Nations, making the case to the members of the Security Council that protecting civilians, prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, and promoting peace and security are in our shared interests, and those general statements have been blocked.

That is why the President directed me to work with the Russians and the region’s players to get a Geneva 2 peace negotiation underway. And the end to the conflict in Syria, we all emphasize today – is a political solution. None of us are coming to you today asking for a long-term military – I mean, some people think we ought to be, but we don’t believe there is any military solution to what is happening in Syria. But make no mistake: No political solution will ever be achievable as long as Assad believes he can just gas his way out of this predicament. And we are without question building a coalition of support for this now. Thirty-one countries have signed on to the G-20 statement, which is a powerful one, endorsing the United States’ efforts to hold Assad accountable for what he is doing. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, France and many others are committed to joining with us in any action. We’re now in the double digits with respect to countries that are prepared to actually take action should they be needed were they capable of it. More than 25 – I mentioned 31 nations signing on to the G-12 statement.

But our diplomatic hand, my former colleagues, our diplomatic hand only becomes stronger if other countries know that America is speaking with a strong voice here, with one voice, and if we’re stronger as a united nation around this purpose. In order to speak with that voice, we need you, the Congress. That’s what the President did. Many of you said please bring this to Congress. The President has done that, and he’s bringing it to Congress with confidence that the Congress will want to join in an effort in order to uphold the word of the United States of America – not just a president, but the United States of America – with respect to these weapons of mass destruction.

Now, I want to be crystal clear about something else. Some people want to do more in Syria; some people are leery about doing anything at all. But one goal we ought to all be able to agree on is that chemical weapons cannot be under the control of a man so craven that he has repeatedly used those chemical weapons against his fellow Syrians with the horrific results that all of us have been able to see.

Yesterday, we challenged the regime to turn them over to the secure control of the international community so that they could be destroyed. And that, of course, would be the ultimate way to degrade and deter Assad’s arsenal, and it is the ideal weapon – ideal way to take this weapon away from him.

Assad’s chief benefactor, the Russians, have responded by saying that they would come up with a proposal to do exactly that. And we have made it clear to them – I have in several conversations with Foreign Minister Lavrov – that this cannot be a process of delay, this cannot be a process of avoidance. It has to be real, has to be measurable, tangible. And it is exceedingly difficult – I want everybody here to know – to fulfill those conditions. But we’re waiting for that proposal, but we’re not waiting for long.

President Obama will take a hard look at it. But it has to be swift, it has to be real, it has to be verifiable. It cannot be a delaying tactic. And if the United Nations Security Council seeks to be the vehicle to make it happen, that cannot be allowed to simply become a debating society. There are many countries – and many of you in the Congress, from those who wanted military action to those who were skeptical of military action – want to see if this idea could become reality.

But make no mistake – make no mistake – about why this idea has any potential legs at all and why it is that the Russians have reached out to the Syrians and why the Syrians have initially suggested they might be interested. A lot of people say that nothing focuses the mind like the prospect of a hanging. Well, it’s the credible threat of force that has been on the table for these last weeks that has, for the first time, brought this regime to even acknowledge that they have a chemical weapons arsenal. And it is the threat of this force and our determination to hold Assad accountable that has motivated others to even talk about a real and credible international action that might have an impact.

So how do you maintain that pressure? We have to continue to show Syria, Russia, and the world that we are not going to fall for stalling tactics. If the challenge we laid down is going to have the potential to become a real proposal, it is only because of the threat of force that we are discussing today. And that threat is more compelling if Congress stands with the Commander-in-Chief.

Finally, let me just correct a common misconception. In my conversation with Steve Chabot earlier today, he mentioned this. I’ve heard it. I’ve talked with many of you. You’ve told you me you hear it. The instant reaction of a lot of Americans – and I am completely sympathetic to it, I understand it, I know where it comes from, I only stopped sitting where you sit a few months ago – I know exactly what the feelings are. People don’t want another Iraq. None of us do. We don’t want Afghanistan.

But Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, we can’t make this decision based solely on the budget. We can’t make this decision based solely on our wishes, on our feeling that we know we’ve been through the ringer for a while. We’re the United States of America, and people look to us. They look to us for the meaning of our word, and they look to us for our values in fact being followed up by the imprint of action where that is necessary.

We are not talking about America going to war. President Obama is not asking for a declaration of war. We are not going to war. There will be no American boots on the ground. Let me repeat: No American boots will be on the ground.

What we’re talking about is a targeted, limited, but consequential action that will reinforce the prohibition against chemical weapons. And General Dempsey and Secretary Hagel will tell you how we can achieve that and their confidence in our ability to achieve that. We’re talking about an action that will degrade Assad’s capacity to use these weapons and to ensure that they do not proliferate. And with this authorization, the President is asking for the power to make sure that the United States of America means what we say.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and members of this committee, I can say to you with absolute confidence, the risk of not acting is much greater than the risk of acting. If we fail to act, Assad will believe that he has license to gas his own people again. And that license will turn prohibited weapons into tactical weapons. And General Dempsey can tell you about this. It would make – it would take an exception, a purposeful exception that has been in force since 1925, and make it the rule today. It would undermine our standing, degrade America’s security and our credibility, and erode our strength in the world.

In a world of terrorists and extremists, we would choose to ignore those risks at our peril. We cannot afford to have chemical weapons transformed into the new convenient weapon, the IED, the car bomb, the weapon of everyday use in this world. Neither our country nor our conscience can bear the costs of inaction, and that’s why we’ve come before you, at the instruction of the President, to ask you to join us in this effort.

CHAIRMAN OF JOINT CHIEFS TESTIFIES BEFORE CONGRESS ABOUT U.S. RESPONSE TO SYRIAN GAS ATTACKS

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
Forces Ready for Syria Contingencies, Dempsey Says
By Karen Parrish
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10, 2013 - U.S. forces are positioned and plans are in place for a range of military options against Bashar Assad's regime in Syria, America's top general testified today before the House Armed Services Committee.

Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke before the committee along with Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on authorization to use military force in Syria, which President Barack Obama has asked Congress to grant.

The general noted that Obama has determined that a limited military response to Assad's use of chemical weapons -- in one instance killing 1,400 Syrians, including some 400 children -- is in America's national security interest. Chemical weapons have long been outlawed under international agreements, one dating back to 1925, that prohibit their assembly, stockpiling or use.

"We've reached the point at which Assad views chemical weapons as just another military tool in his arsenal, a tool he's willing to use indiscriminately," Dempsey said. "And that's what makes this so dangerous -- dangerous for Syria, dangerous for the region, and dangerous for the world."

Dempsey said he has prepared at the president's request a list of target packages to meet the objectives of deterring the Assad regime's further use of chemical weapons and degrading its military capability to deliver chemical weapons.

"We have both an initial target set and subsequent target sets, should they become necessary," the chairman said. "The planned strikes will disrupt those parts of Assad's forces directly related to the chemical attack of 21 August, degrade his means of chemical weapons delivery, and finally, degrade the assets that Assad uses to threaten his neighbors and to defend his regime."

Dempsey added the strikes will send Assad a deterrent message that the United States can "hold at risk the capabilities he values most."

U.S. forces are ready to carry out the orders of the commander in chief, he said. Dempsey acknowledged that because of sequestration-mandated spending cuts, "the force that sits behind the forward-deployed force" faces readiness issues. But a limited operation in Syria to defend the nation's security interests is feasible, he said.

"I am concerned not about [funding] this operation, but in general that unforeseen contingencies will be impacted in the future if sequestration continues," he said.

Dempsey noted the limited nature of the planned strikes should decrease the potential for miscalculation and escalation, as well as minimize collateral damage. "However, we are postured to address a range of contingencies and we're prepared to support our friends in the region should Assad choose to retaliate," he added.

U.S. troops are exceptionally well trained and prepared, the general told the panel. "I'm honored to represent them," he said. "If called to execute, your military will respond."

GEN. KELLY TELLS CONGRESS OF IRAN'S INFLUENCE IN LATIN AMERICA

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Southcom Chief: Iran Working to Expand Influence in Latin America
By Nick Simeone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 20, 2013 - U.S. Southern Command's top officer told Congress today that Iran is actively working to expand its presence in Latin America to cultivate allies at a time when Tehran is facing tough U.S and international sanctions for its alleged nuclear weapons program.

Marine Corps Gen. John F. Kelly told the House Armed Services Committee that Iran "has been very, very active over the last few years" in cultivating diplomatic and cultural ties to the region, especially by befriending Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who died earlier this month.

"They've opened embassies, they've opened cultural centers," he testified, adding that on the surface, all of this appears to be normal.

"But to what end is obviously the issue," he told the House panel.

Kelly told lawmakers he could discuss details about what the Iranian government's goals might be only in a closed session. He mentioned Bolivia, Ecuador and Argentina as countries that have been the target of Iran's diplomatic and economic outreach.

Despite Iran's outreach to countries that he said have interests unfavorable to the United States, the general cast Iran's overtures as being far from successful and described a region as largely uninterested in Tehran's diplomatic engagement.

"The region as a whole has not been receptive to Iranian efforts," Kelly said in his prepared testimony. But he cautioned that Iran's allies, including Hezbollah, have established a presence in several Latin-American countries to deadly effect, recalling that Iran and Hezbollah were blamed for the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, that killed more than 80 people.

"Proselytizers with ties to global Islamic groups are attempting to radicalize and recruit among the Muslim communities throughout the region," he said, adding that the United States and its partners "should be extremely concerned whenever external extremist groups or state sponsors of terrorism see the Western Hemisphere as attractive or, even worse, vulnerable."

Kelly pointed out that Venezuelan government officials have been sanctioned for providing financial support to Hezbollah, as well as for supporting rebels in neighboring Colombia.

Kelly said China is another country far outside Latin America that wants to compete with the United States for influence in the region, and is very engaged economically, "buying commodities in a big way and also investing in port facilities." This, he added, is all the more reason for the United States to continue working to strengthen partnerships in the region.

OFFICIAL SAYS U.S. WILL HAVE FORCE REDUCTIONS, BASE CLOSINGS

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DOD Requires More Base Closings, Official Says
By Nick Simeone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 15, 2013 - The Defense Department possesses more real estate than it needs and is looking to close additional bases and installations in the United States and abroad, a senior DOD official told a House panel yesterday.

Another round of base realignments and closings should be an essential part of any overall strategy for reshaping the military, John Conger, the acting deputy undersecretary of defense for installations and environment, told the House Armed Services Committee in prepared testimony.

"Force structure is declining relative to that which existed in 2005, thereby continuing to add to aggregate excess capacity," Conger said, noting that the U.S. Army is reducing its active duty end strength from 570,000 to 490,000 by 2020, and the Marine Corps from about 202,000 to 182,000.

"If we assume our bases were either appropriately loaded or were carrying excess capacity," he said, "these force reductions will increase that surplus."

In last year's budget request, the Pentagon asked Congress for permission to initiate two more rounds of base closings, under what is known as BRAC, the Base Realignment and Closure authority. Conger said the last round of BRAC closings, in 2005, produced $4 billion in annual recurring savings.

By law, under the BRAC process, an independent commission submits to Congress a list of military installations it believes should be closed or realigned, with lawmakers and the president then required to approve or reject the recommendations without change.

Conger referred to a 2004 DOD study which he said found the military had 24 percent excess capacity "and that the BRAC 2005 recommendations reduced capacity by only 3.4 percent."

The Defense Department is examining further reductions in U.S. military bases in Europe, where Conger said more than 100 sites have already been returned to host governments since 2003, and where no authority from Congress is required for recommending additional closures.

"By the end of this year, we plan to conclude with a fully vetted list of options from which the Secretary [of Defense] can make strategic decisions for eliminating excess, preserving and even enhancing our ability to meet strategic and operational commitments," Conger said in his prepared remarks.

The U.S. Army already plans to close 33 additional sites in Europe associated with the decision to reduce brigade combat teams based on the continent.

CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY ON EMERGING POWERS

Map:  China.  Credit:  U.S. State Department.

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Scholar: Trends, Emerging Powers Bear Watching
By Amaani Lyle
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Feb. 13, 2013 - The nation must sustain awareness of technological and geopolitical trends in allies and emerging powers, a National Defense University senior research fellow told a House subcommittee today.

In a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee's subcommittee on intelligence, emerging threats and capabilities, Frank Hoffman stressed the urgency of staying prepared for an ever-broadening array of actors and challenges, rather than a singular one.

"We have to be ready for a broad spectrum of conflicts that range from purely irregular and terrorists at one end to perhaps rising powers with conventional capability to the other," he said.

Hoffman also contested what he called a new "peace theory" circulating throughout Washington in which prominent journals and think tanks have opined that war as most know it has all but disappeared. "There's a pernicious concept ... that the tides of war are receding and that the United States can retrench without risks," he said.

Hoffman acknowledged U.S. successes and the nation's lack of competition from a major power since 1991, but warned against discounting patterns across centuries.

"Great progress has been made in the last decade, but the notion [that] a dramatic change in human nature [can] outweigh 2,000 years of recorded history is tenuous, at best," Hoffman said.
The stability and leadership the U.S. provides the world, a consensus on a Western model based upon rule of law, and global partnerships cause positive assessments in reviewing the last 10 years, he explained.

"We've had extensive peacekeeping support from the international community, to include the [United Nations]," he said. "There's a growth and continued contribution from the conflict-resolution community."

But a number of concerns should give people pause, Hoffman maintained. He described a perceived decline in U.S. capabilities or interest in sustaining its position in the world as emerging powers rise. "History suggests some caution when new, emerging, non-status-quo powers arise," he said.

He also warned of "peace support fatigue" in the international community. "We're going to see a ... lack of domestic support from many allies and other agencies that have been very useful ... in keeping instability down," Hoffman said.

Proxy wars, Hoffman said, also can be catalytic, producing a major war out of what was intended to be a smaller conflict.
He cited resource contention over energy, food, water and rare materials as a "tinderbox for conflicts."

"I see actions in the South China Sea ... and [China's] efforts to secure energy resources and raw assets as something to be taken seriously," he said.

Dwindling incomes and pensions that younger and older demographics will suffer can spur dissent in regions throughout Africa, Asia, the Middle East and southern Europe, Hoffman noted, adding that higher unemployment and subsequent dissent could become the "new normal" in affected nations.

"That will produce more disillusionment and more angry people than ... we've seen in the past, [and] will lead to political instability," he said.

Perhaps one of the more visible and imminent dangers is the divided religions and religious extremism, or "sacred rage," in Islam, which Hoffman said could spur the emergence of other forms of government. "We're creating a lot of fertile ground for al-Qaida and its affiliated movements to take root in some places," he said, "and we're not going to be happy with the results."

Still, the defense scholar noted, the subcommittee's charge is at the cusp of what is emerging in the national security arena and what could generate the greatest risks to the nation's prosperity and security in the next decade.

"Plato had it right: 'Only the dead have seen the end of war,'" Hoffman said. "We may not face another bloody century like the last, ... but the world remains a very dangerous place."

HELPING CONGOLESE ARMY HELPS U.S SECURITY

Democratic Republic Of The Congo. Credit:  CIA World Factbook

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Official: DOD Aid to Congolese Army Bolsters U.S. Security
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Dec. 19, 2012 – The Defense Department plays a critical role in building security capacity in the central African Democratic Republic of the Congo, officials from the departments of Defense and State told the House Armed Services Committee today.

Aiding the armies of DRC and nearby nations such as Uganda can help to disrupt growing links between instability in central Africa and the global terrorist threat, the officials said, and push back against nonstate actors and regimes, such as those in Syria, Iran and North Korea, that directly threaten the United States and its allies.

Derek Chollet, assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, and Johnnie Carson, assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of African Affairs, testified before the full committee.

"The U.S. has many competing security priorities in Africa, from Somalia to Sudan to Libya to Nigeria to Mali," Chollet said.

"But the DRC also remains important because of the potential opportunity lasting stability would bring and because of the imperative to prevent mass atrocities, which is a priority for this administration," he added.

The DRC’s army, and the state military organization responsible for defending the nation, is called the Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Its acronym, FARDC, stands for the French version of the name -- Forces Armées de la République Démocratique du Congo.

"The security and humanitarian situation in the DRC is the most volatile and violent in Africa today," Carson said. "An estimated 5 million people have lost their lives since 1998, and millions more have been uprooted and displaced."

A key threat facing Congolese civilians, particularly in the eastern DRC, is an array of violent armed groups, most notoriously including the March 23 Movement, called M23, the Lord’s Resistance Army, and the remnants of genocidal militias that now call themselves the Democratic Liberation Forces of Rwanda, or FDLR, the assistant secretary noted.

Another danger to civilians is an undisciplined state security force, Chollet said, "particularly when the forces are not well supported, have absorbed armed groups without vetting them for human rights abuses, operate under a separate chain of command or have not been trained in their legal obligations."

This confluence of security concerns, he added, "is prompting the Defense Department to closely follow security developments of DRC in the Great Lakes region and is actively involved along with our State Department colleagues to address them."

Chollet said the unfolding crisis highlights the Congolese government’s failure to provide effective security, governance and services in the eastern provinces.

"It also highlights continued political and economic tensions between the DRC and its eastern neighbors, especially Rwanda," the assistant secretary said.

Outside support, particularly from Rwanda, has helped to make the M23 a significant threat that seriously challenges efforts to stabilize eastern DRC and protect civilians, Chollet said. President Barack Obama told Rwandan President Paul Kagame in a telephone call yesterday that "any support to M23 is inconsistent with Rwanda’s desire for stability and peace," he added.

The Rwandan military is a capable partner in peacekeeping operations outside the immediate region, but their support for M23 prompted the Obama administration to suspend Rwanda’s foreign military financing, Chollet told the panel.

"As the situation in eastern Congo develops," he said, "we will continue to monitor reports of external support closely and respond appropriately, including by reviewing our assistance."

Inside the DRC, the United States is prioritizing private-sector reform.

"This means working with our partners and the DRC to develop a comprehensive approach that addresses all three elements of [the] security sector -- the Congolese defense forces, military justice and the police," the assistant secretary said.

"We must work to develop more professional forces that respect human rights and protect both DRC’s territorial integrity and population," he added.

DOD has provided training to the Congolese military, including a light-infantry battalion in 2010, incorporating sexual and gender-based violence protection and human rights training into every aspect of the effort, Chollet said.

"In addition to ongoing training on human rights and law, Defense Department engagements with the FARDC have included logistics, exercise participation, basic military intelligence training, military medicine, humanitarian assistance and humanitarian mine action," the assistant secretary said.

Moving forward, he added, DOD stands ready to work with its State colleagues to determine the best way ahead and support security-sector reform, including by providing more infantry training for the FARDC.

The scale of the need is significant, Chollet said.

"Today we have trained one battalion of 500 soldiers [out of] a military that numbers approximately 150,000. Other European and African partners have also provided training but the FARDC’s absorptive capacity for assistance is limited," he said.

"The Congolese defense ministry has been slow to respond to our requests [to provide] appropriate personnel for training and information needed for congressionally mandated human rights vetting. The lack of English-language capacity further inhibits training opportunities," Chollet added.

While the DRC works to develop its own security capabilities, the United Nations Peacekeeping Operation, called MONUSCO, is essential for providing security for the DRC civilian population.

"MONUSCO has a challenging mandate in a very fluid security climate. We are reviewing options for improving MONUSCO’s ability to meet the civilian protection requirements in the DRC," Chollet said.

"To help MONUSCO," he added, "DOD has seconded three U.S. military officers who are hoping to support operational efforts in ensuring an efficient flow of information between MONUSCO headquarters and field components."

Despite many challenges, the assistant secretary said, DOD has "an enduring interest in helping develop a more capable Congolese military, and this fits within [Defense] Secretary [Leon E.] Panetta’s broader policy emphasis on building partner capacity."

SEC. OF DEFENSE SPEAKS BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON MEETING NEEDS OF VETERANS

FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Spoken Statement on DOD-VA Collaboration before the House Armed Services and Veterans Affairs Committees
As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta, Washington D.C., Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Thank you very much.
Chairman McKeon, Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Smith and Ranking Member Filner, dear former colleagues of mine, I appreciate the opportunity to be here. And I also want to pay my respects to the members of both committees. This is a unique event. It's an important event.

And first and foremost, I want to thank all of the members of both the Armed Services Committee and Veterans Committee for the support that you provide the Department of Defense, our men and women in uniform, and our veterans. We could simply not do the work that needs to be done in protecting this country and in serving those who are our warriors and their families – we just could not do it without the partnership that we have with all of you. And for that reason, let me just express my personal appreciation to all of you for your dedication and for your commitment to those areas.

I also want to thank you for the opportunity to appear this morning alongside Secretary Shinseki. He is a great public servant, a great military leader and a great friend to me and to our nation's veterans, and I appreciate the opportunity to appear alongside of him.

I'm pleased to have this chance to discuss the ways that the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs are working together to try to meet the needs of our service members, our veterans and their families. This hearing comes at a very important time for our nation and for collaboration between our two Departments.

DoD and VA are in the process of building an integrated military and veteran support system. It's something that should have been done a long time ago, but we are in the process of trying to make that happen and develop a support system that's fundamentally different and a lot more robust than it's been in the past.

Today, after a decade of war, a new generation of service members, of veterans, are coming home. Our nation has made a lifetime commitment to them for their service and for their sacrifice, for their willingness to put their lives on the line for this country. These men and women have shouldered a very heavy burden. They've been deployed, as you know, time and time and time again.

They've fought battles in Iraq. They've fought battles in Afghanistan. They've been targeted by terrorists and by IEDs. They've been deployed from Kuwait to South Korea, from the Pacific to the Middle East. Many are dealing with serious wounds, as well as with complex and difficult problems, both seen and unseen. They fought, and many have died, to protect this country, and we need to fight to protect them.

We owe it to those returning service members and to the veterans to provide them with a seamless support system so that they can put their lives back together, so that they can pursue their goals, so that they can not only go back to their communities but be able to give back to their communities and to help strengthen our nation in many ways.

None of this is easy. It takes tremendous commitment on the part of all Americans – those in government, those in the military. It takes tremendous commitment on the part of those in the private sector, our business leaders and frankly all citizens across our country.

There is no doubt that DoD and VA are working more closely together than we have before. But frankly, we have much more to do to try to reach a level of cooperation to better meet the needs of those who have served our nation in uniform, especially our wounded warriors.

Since I became Secretary a little over a year ago, Secretary Shinseki and I have met on a regular basis in order to personally guide efforts to share resources and expand cooperation between our departments. The partnership between our departments extends to all levels, led by a joint committee co-chaired by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Senior military leaders have been deeply committed to this effort. This is about the care of their troops, but it's also about recruiting and retaining the very best military force in the world. When it comes down to it, caring for those who have served and their families is not only a moral imperative, it is a national security imperative as well.

For those who have fought for their nation, we need to protect their care and their benefits, but we also need to protect their integrity and their honor. It's for that reason that before I discuss the specifics about DoD and VA collaboration, I want to announce an important step that my Department is taking in order to help maintain the integrity of the awards and honors that are earned by our service members and their veterans.

You're all aware of the Supreme Court decision that determined that free speech allows someone to lie about military awards and honors. Free speech is one thing, but dishonoring those who have been honored on the battlefield is something else.

For that reason, today we are posting a new page on the Defense Department's website that will list those service members and veterans who have earned our nation's highest military awards for valor. Initially the website will list the names of those who have earned the Medal of Honor since 9/11, but in the near term, it will include the recipients of the Services Crosses and the Silver Star since 9/11. We'll look at expanding that information available on the website over time.

This effort will help raise public awareness about our nation's heroes and help deter those who might falsely claim military honors, which I know has been a source of great concern for many veterans and members of these committees and members of the Congress. I want to thank you for your concerns and for your leadership on this issue. And our hope is that this will help protect the honor of those who serve the United States in battle.

Now let me discuss the five priority areas that DoD and VA are trying to work on to enhance collaboration.

The first is this transition program, the Transition GPS program. At the Department of Defense, our goal is to provide a comprehensive transition assistance program that prepares those who are leaving the service for the next step – whether that is pursuing additional education, whether it's trying to find a job in the public sector or the private sector, or whether it's starting their own business.

On Monday, the President announced the new "Transition GPS program" that will extend transition preparation through the entire span of each service member's military career. The program will ensure that every service member develops their own individual transition plan, meets new career readiness standards and is prepared to apply their valuable military experience however and wherever they choose.

The second area that we focused on is trying to integrate the Disability Evaluation System. We've overhauled the legacy disability evaluation system in trying to make improvements with regards to developing a new system. In the past, as you know, service members with medical conditions preventing them from doing their military jobs had to navigate separate disability evaluation systems at both DoD and VA. We've replaced that legacy system with a single integrated Disability Evaluation System that enables our departments to work in tandem. Under the new system currently in use, service members and veterans have to deal with fewer layers of bureaucracy, and they are able to receive VA disability compensation sooner after separating from the military.

But let's understand as we try to do this, this is a tough challenge to try to make this work in a way that can respond to our veterans effectively. After all, veterans have rights. They have the right to ensure that their claims are carefully adjudicated. But at the same time, we need to expedite the process, and to ensure that as we do that we protect their benefits. And that's what we're trying to do with this system.

The third area is to try to integrate – as was pointed out – a new Electronic Health Record system. We're working on a major initiative to try to do that. For too long, efforts to achieve a real seamless transition between our health care systems have been hamstrung by separate legacy health record systems. In response to the challenge that was issued by the President – and frankly, presidents in the past who have tried to address this issue – DoD and VA is finally working steadily to build an integrated Electronic Health Record system. When operational, that system will be the single source for service members and veterans to access their medical history and for clinicians to use that history at any DoD and VA medical facility.

Again, this is not easy, and so the way we're approaching it is to try to see if we can complete this process at two places – San Antonio and Hampton Roads – and then try to expand it to every other hospital. It's tough, but if we can achieve this, it would be a very significant achievement that I think could be a model not only for the hospitals that we run but for hospitals in the private sector as well.

Fourthly, we need greater collaboration on mental and behavioral health. Beyond these specific initiatives that I mentioned, we are trying to focus on enhancing collaboration in areas that involve some of the toughest challenges we face now, related to mental and behavioral health. Post-traumatic stress has emerged as a signature unseen wound of this last decade of war. Its impact will be felt for decades to come, and both the DoD and VA must therefore improve our ability to identify and treat this condition, as well as all mental and behavioral health conditions, and to better equip our system to deal with the unique challenges these conditions can present.

For example, I've been very concerned about reports of problems with modifying diagnoses for post-traumatic stress in the military disability evaluation system. Many of these issues were brought to my attention by members of Congress – and I appreciate their doing that – particularly the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Patty Murray, who addressed this issue because it happened in her own state in a particular way.

To address these concerns, I've directed a review across all of the uniformed services. This review, led by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Erin Conaton, will help ensure that we are delivering on our commitment to care for our service members. The review will be analytically sound, it will be action-oriented and it will provide hopefully the least disruptive impact to behavioral health services for service members. The effort here is to determine where those diagnoses take place, why they were downgraded downward, what took place, so that we know exactly what has happened. I hope that the entire review will be completed within approximately 18 months.

The last area is an area that has really concerned me, which is the area of trying to prevent military suicides. We've strongly focused on doing what we can to try to deal with this issue, which I've said is one of the most frustrating problems I have come across as Secretary of Defense. Despite increased efforts and attention by both DoD and VA, the suicide trends among service members and veterans continues to move in a very troubling and tragic direction. In part, it is reflective of the larger society. The fact is, numbers are increasing now within the military.

In close cooperation with the VA, DoD is taking aggressive steps to try to address this issue, including promoting a culture to try to get people to seek the kind of help that they need, to improve access to mental and behavioral health care, to emphasize mental fitness and to work to better understand the issue of suicide with the help of other agencies, including the VA.

One of the things that I'm trying to stress is that we have got to improve the ability of leadership within the military to see these issues, to see them coming and to do something to try to prevent it from happening. Our efforts to deliver the best possible services depend on the dedication of our DoD and VA professionals who work extremely hard every day on behalf of those who have served in uniform, and I extend my thanks to all who help support our men and women in uniform today, to our veterans and to our families.

Let me just say, we are one family. We have to be one family at the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs, a family that supports one another and all those who have answered the call to defend our country. Together, we will do everything possible to ensure that the bond between our two Departments and between our country and those who have defended it only grows stronger in the future.

Let me also say this. As a former Congressman – now as Secretary of Defense – and someone who's spent over 40 years involved in government in some capacity or another, I am well aware that too often the very best intentions for caring for our veterans can get trapped in bureaucratic infighting. It gets trapped by conflicting rules and regulations. It gets trapped by frustrating levels of responsibility.

This cannot be an excuse for not dealing with these issues. It should be a challenge for both the VA and DoD, for the Congress and for the Administration to try to meet that challenge together.

Our warriors are trained not to fail on the battlefield. We must be committed not to fail them on the homefront. I realize that there have been a lot of good words and a lot of good will and a lot of good intentions. But I can assure you that my interest is in results, not words. I'm grateful for the support of the Congress and particularly these two committees. And I thank you and look forward to your questions.