DOD VIDEO: HAGEL, DEMPSEY TESTIFY ON ISIL STRATEGY

NATO COMMANDER GEN. DUNFORD BRIEFS SENATE ON PROGRESS IN AFGHANISTAN

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
Dunford Briefs Senate on Progress in Afghanistan
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 12, 2014 – By any measure, the U.S. and NATO campaign in Afghanistan has been successful, but that success will be jeopardized if international troops must withdraw at the end of the year, said the commander of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force and of U.S. forces in Afghanistan said here today.

Marine Corps Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr. told the Senate Armed Services Committee today that operations in Afghanistan have been successful in preventing al-Qaida and other terror groups from using the nation as a haven and staging ground.

But this progress is fragile, he added, and Afghanistan will need international trainers and some counterterrorism help to maintain progress.

American and international forces have helped Afghanistan develop security forces that have taken the lead throughout the country. Afghan forces did well against a determined enemy in the 2013 fighting season and stand poised to run a safe and secure election next month, the general said.

ISAF has transitioned from a combat role to a support role, Dunford said, and the 33,600 international troops from 49 countries in Afghanistan have focused on a “train, advise and assist” mission. “Currently,” he added, “ISAF advisors are re-orienting their focus away from developing combat skills to now developing the capabilities and institutions needed for the [Afghan national security forces’] long-term sustainability.”

With none months left in the ISAF campaign, NATO and partner forces will focus on supporting Afghan forces as they prepare for the fighting season, political transition, and security transition in December, when they will assume full responsibility for Afghanistan’s security, Dunford told the senators.

Planners also will continue to posture the force in preparation for NATO’s post-2014 train, advise and assist mission, dubbed Operation Resolute Support, which will address gaps in capabilities that are necessary for the Afghan forces to become self-sustainable.

The security forces still have problems, Dunford said. In 2013, Afghan forces relied on NATO forces for enablers, particularly in close air support, casualty evacuation, logistics, and countering roadside bombs, as well as in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, the general said. “The [Afghan forces] also suffered high casualties and instances of poor leadership, but impressively remained a cohesive and resilient fighting force,” he added.

The security forces had a very high-profile success when they secured the Loya Jirga -- a national council of community elders and leaders -- in November. The council brought 3,000 Afghan leaders to the national capital of Kabul to discuss the U.S.-Afghanistan bilateral security agreement. Terror networks and the Taliban had vowed to disrupt the meeting, but they were unsuccessful.

“On balance, after watching the [Afghan forces] respond to a variety of challenges over the past year, I do not believe the Taliban-led insurgency represents an existential threat to [the Afghan government or Afghan security forces],” Dunford said.

But NATO and partner nations must remain for Operation Resolute Support, the general said. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has refused to sign the agreement, and President Barack Obama has directed the U.S. military to develop plans for a full withdrawal from Afghanistan by the end of the year in the absence of a signed agreement.

“Without the Resolute Support mission, the progress made to date will not be sustainable,” he said. “A limited number of advisors will be required in 2015 to continue the train, advise, and assist mission.” Specifically, he said, the advisors will look at aviation, intelligence, special operations and building the capability to run security departments.

Without this help, Dunford said, Afghan forces will deteriorate. Al-Qaida and like-minded organizations would see an opportunity to again establish bases in Afghanistan, and that would be a threat to the United States and America’s national interests, the general told the senators.

Fortunately, Dunford said, all of the Afghan presidential candidates favor signing the bilateral security agreement and continued affiliation with NATO. He told the senators that he sees a force of between 8,000 and 12,000 in the country, with most involved in the train, advise, assist role and some limited counterterrorism operations.

DEFENSE SECRETARY, CHAIRMAN JOINT CHIEFS TESTIFY ON BUDGET BEFORE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE

FROM:  DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
Hagel: Severe Budget Cuts Will Compromise National Security
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Mar. 5, 2014 – Congressional failure to fund the Defense Department above levels required by sequestration in fiscal years 2015, 2016 and beyond will compromise national security, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said here today.

The secretary testified with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey this morning before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the president’s fiscal year 2015 budget request.

The abrupt and severe budget cuts known as sequestration would result in “a military that could not fulfill its defense strategy, putting at risk America’s traditional role as guarantor of global security and, ultimately, our own security,” Hagel told the panel.

The president’s defense budget is responsible, balanced and realistic, he said, supporting the U.S. defense strategy, defending the nation and keeping Defense Department’s compensation and training commitments to its people.

“These commitments will be seriously jeopardized by a return to sequestration-level spending,” the secretary said. “That is not the military the president and I want for America’s future. I don’t think that’s the military this committee wants for America’s future, but it’s the path we’re on.”

Hagel called the defense budget far more than a set of numbers or a list of decisions.

“It is a statement of values and priorities,” the secretary said. “It is a budget grounded in reality … that prepares the U.S. military to defend our national security in a world that is becoming less predictable, more volatile and, in some ways, more threatening to our country and our interests.”

The department’s fiscal 2015 base budget request is about $496 billion and includes an extra $26 billion, a proposal called the president’s Opportunity Growth and Security Initiative that DOD would use next year to improve readiness and modernization.

“That $26 billion represents an effort that would help dig us back out of the hole that we have been in for the last two years on readiness, and particularly focused on modernization,” Hagel said.

And the president’s five-year plan offers what the secretary called a realistic alternative to sequestration, projecting $115 billion more than the current law allows.

DOD requires the added funding to implement its updated defense strategy as outlined in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, a study by the department undertaken every four years that analyzes strategic objectives and potential military threats.

“The strategic priorities articulated in the QDR represent America’s highest security interests -- defending the homeland, building security globally, deterring aggression and being ready and capable to win decisively against the adversary,” Hagel said.

In December, the Bipartisan Budget Act passed by Congress gave the department temporary relief from sequestration and a year of budget certainty, Hagel said, but it still imposes more than $75 billion in cuts over the next two years. Unless Congress changes the law, sequestration will cut another $50 billion from the budget beginning in fiscal 2016.

“Even though we are requesting spending levels above sequestration, we have maintained flexibility in our budget to respond immediately to the lower topline should sequestration be reimposed,” the secretary said, noting that this was done by reprogramming some of the sequestration-level force-structure reductions that take longer to plan and implement, such as the decommissioning of the aircraft carrier USS George Washington.

Hagel also issued formal guidance to the service leadership that these reductions will not be made if Congress indicates it will make future appropriations at topline levels in the five-year plan.

Addressing for the panel critical issues in the budget request, Hagel said that to meet national security needs under a constrained budget the department focused on the balance among readiness, capability and capacity.

“After more than a decade of large stability operations, we traded some capacity to protect the readiness and modernization capabilities as we shift the focus on future requirements. These are shaped by enduring and emerging threats. We have to be able to defeat terrorist threats and deter adversaries with increasingly modern weapons and technological capabilities,” he said.

“We must also assure that America’s economic interests are protected through open sea lanes, freedom of the skies and space, and deal with one of the most urgent and real threats facing all nations – cyberattacks,” the secretary added. “That’s why we protected funding for cyber and special operations forces.”
For the active-duty Army, the department proposed drawing down to 440,000 or 450,000 soldiers, less than 10 percent below its size before the attacks of 9/11. And the department will continue investing in high-end ground capabilities to keep its soldiers the most advanced on earth, Hagel said.

Army National Guard and Army Reserve units will draw down by 5 percent, and the Army’s helicopter force structure will be reduced by 8 percent. The active Army’s helicopter fleet will be cut by 25 percent while keeping the aircraft modernized as the fleet moves from seven models to four.

The decisions, including the department’s recommendation to trade out Apaches in the Army National Guard for Black Hawks were driven by strategic evaluations, Hagel added.

The Navy will take 11 ships out of its operational inventory, and these will be modernized and returned to service with greater capability and longer lifespans, he said.

The Marine Corps will continue its planned drawdown to 182,000, but will devote 900 more Marines to increased embassy security. Hagel said the Marine Corps will remain ready and postured for crisis response as it moves back to its expeditionary, amphibious roots.

The Air Force will retire the A-10, replacing it with more modern sophisticated multi-mission aircraft such as the joint strike fighter, he said.
On compensation reform, Hagel said, under a restricted budget the department needs modest adjustments to the growth in pay and benefits, and the savings will be reinvested in training and equipping the troops. There are no proposals to change military retirement in this budget, he added.

The department will continue to recommend pay increases, the secretary said, but they won’t be as substantial as in past years. The Defense Department will continue subsidizing off-base housing costs, he added, but at 95 percent rather than 100 percent, and the decrease will be phased in over the next several years.
The department will not close commissaries, Hagel said, but it recommends gradually phasing out some subsidies for domestic commissaries that are not in remote locations. And the department recommends simplifying and modernizing its three TRICARE health care plan systems. It will do this by merging them into one system, with modest increases in copays and deductibles that encourage using the most affordable means of care.

“Active duty personnel will still receive health care that is entirely free,” the secretary said. “This will be more effective and more efficient and will let us focus more on quality. Overall, everyone’s benefits will remain substantial, affordable and generous, as they should be.”

The fiscal 2015 proposed defense budget will allow the military to meet America’s future challenges and threats, he said, and it matches resources to strategy.

“As we end our second war of the last decade, our longest ever, this budget adapts and adjusts to new strategic realities and fiscal constraints while preparing for the future,” Hagel told the panel.

“This is not a business-as usual-presentation,” he added. “It is a budget that begins to make the hard choices that will have to be made. The longer we defer these difficult decisions, the more risk we will have down the road, and the next DOD leaders and Congress will have to face more complicated and difficult choices.”

DEFENSE OFFICIAL TELLS CONGRESS BASE CLOSURES WILL SAVE MONEY

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Official Makes Case for More Base Closures, Realignments

By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, April 25, 2013 - Recognizing congressional resistance to another round of base realignments and closures, a senior defense official told a Senate panel yesterday it would be irresponsible to cut the military's "tooth" without doing everything possible to eliminate excess within its "tail."

John C. Conger, acting deputy undersecretary of defense for installations and environment, made the case for a 2015 BRAC round during testimony before the Senate Armed Service Committee's readiness and management support subcommittee.

DOD is facing a serious problem in light of its declining budgets and force structure, but has limited flexibility to adjust its infrastructure accordingly, he told the panel.

"We need to find a way to strike the right balance so infrastructure does not drain too many resources from the warfighter," he said. "We need to be cognizant that maintaining more infrastructure than we need taxes other resources that the warfighter needs -- from depot maintenance to training to bullets and bombs."

Conger cited $8 billion in annual, recurring savings from the first four rounds of BRAC in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995. BRAC 2005 is producing another $4 billion in annual savings through avoided costs for base operating support, personnel and leasing costs, he reported.

Meanwhile, BRAC 2005 eliminated 13,000 civilian positions -- an example of the kind of workforce efficiencies the fiscal 2013 National Defense Authorization Act requires, he said. Previous BRAC rounds averaged 36,000 eliminations per round.

"Congress has already demanded these civilian personnel cuts, and if they are not made through BRAC, they will need to be made elsewhere," Conger argued.

As the department seeks cost-saving measures, it also is undergoing a comprehensive review that kicked off in January to identify potential cases for closure or consolidation there, he noted.

"There are other examples where we're driving towards efficiencies throughout the department, and we have to do that. Installations are just one piece of the puzzle," Conger said. "But as we cut down in force structure, it would be irresponsible of us not to ... propose ways to cut the tail as we cut the tooth."

Conger acknowledged skepticism in Congress about the need for another round of BRAC, most likely, he said, because implementing the last round cost so much more than anticipated.

"To be clear, BRAC 2015 will not look like BRAC 2005," he told the panel. The previous BRAC, he said, was conducted while the force structure and budgets were growing, and under leadership-directed transformations across the department.

"Today, force structure is shrinking, the budget is shrinking, and we are firmly focused on reducing our future costs," he said, noting similar circumstances during the first four rounds of BRAC.

"I can assert with confidence that a 2015 round will have far more in common with them than it would with the 2005 round," Conger said.

The BRAC discussion came within the context of the Defense Department's fiscal 2014 budget proposal. It includes $11 billion for military construction, $10.9 billion for investments to sustain and restore DOD facilities and $3.8 billion for environmental measures.

The request, Conger noted, is slightly higher than the fiscal 2013 appropriation. This is in part because all but the most critical projects and measures were curtailed this year due to sequestration.

"While budgets are constrained and force structure shrinks, our infrastructure is being held constant," he told the senators, emphasizing that DOD must maintain its 550,000 buildings and structures that support military operations and readiness.

INTEL OFFICIAL SAYS SEQUESTRATION CAUSED INTELLIGENCE DEGRADATION WILL BE "INSIDIOUS"

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Cuts Make Intelligence Failures Likely, Top Intel Official Says
By Claudette Roulo
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, April 18, 2013 - Speaking to a Senate panel about the effects of sequestration on the national security environment, the director of national intelligence said today that he's "seen this movie before."

During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on current and future worldwide threats, James R. Clapper said he served through the last round of budget cuts 20 years ago.

"And we were then enjoined to reap the peace dividend occasioned by the end of the Cold War," he said. "We reduced the intelligence community by about 23 percent. During the mid and late '90s, we closed many CIA stations, reduced [human intelligence] collectors, cut analysts, allowed our overhead architecture to atrophy, neglected basic infrastructure needs such as power, space and cooling, and let our facilities decay. And most damagingly, we badly distorted the workforce."

The intelligence community has spent the last decade rebuilding, Clapper said, but, with sequestration, another damaging downward spiral looms.

"Sequestration forces the intelligence community to reduce all intelligence activities and functions without regard to impact on our mission," the nation's senior intelligence officersaid, adding that the cuts jeopardize the nation's safety and security, and that the jeopardy will increase over time.

"Unlike more directly observable sequestration impacts like shorter hours at the parks or longer security lines at airports," he said, "the degradation to intelligence will be insidious. It will be gradual and almost invisible until, of course, we have an intelligence failure."

In his 50 years of intelligence experience, Clapper told the senators, the country has never "confronted a more diverse array of threats, crises and challenges around the world."

This makes the mandatory budget cuts imposed by sequestration "incongruous," he added.

The world is changing, Clapper said, and the threat environment along with it. "Threats are more interconnected and viral," he said. "Events which, at first blush, seem local and irrelevant can quickly set off transnational disruptions that affect U.S. national interests."

Threats in the cyber realm can come from both state and nonstate actors, he said, and their danger to global security "cannot be overstated."

Climate, disease and competition for natural resources have huge national security implications, Clapper said

"Many countries important to U.S. interests are living with extreme water and food stress that can destabilize governments, force human migrations and trigger conflicts," he said.

And while al-Qaida and the potential for a massive coordinated attack on the United States may be diminished, he said, the jihadist movement is now more diffuse and still determined to attack.

The rise of new governments and ongoing unrest in the Arab world creates openings for extremists, Clapper told the senators. Opportunistic individuals and groups can take advantage of diminished counterterrorism capabilities, porous borders, easy availability of weapons and internal stresses, he explained.

In Iran, the technical expertise to enrich uranium and build nuclear reactors and ballistic missiles continues to develop, Clapper said. Tehran has the scientific, technical and industrial capability to build missile-deliverable nuclear weapons, he continued, but the central question is whether it has the political will to do so.

"Such a decision, we believe, will be made by the [Iranian government's] supreme leader, and at this point we don't know if he'll eventually decide to build nuclear weapons," Clapper said.

"The increasingly beleaguered [Syrian] regime, having found that its escalation of violence through conventional means is not working, appears quite willing to use chemical weapons against its own people," he said. "We receive many claims of chemical warfare use in Syria each day and we take them all seriously, and we do all we can to investigate them."

Countries throughout the Middle East and North Africa are experiencing violence and political turmoil, he said, leading to civilian casualties and economic dislocation. Some 3.6 million Syrians have been displaced, and an additional 1.3 million have fled the country, Clapper said, noting that the refugee flow is placing pressure on neighboring countries.

"Moving to Asia, the Taliban-led insurgency has diminished in some areas of Afghanistan but is still resilient and capable of challenging U.S. international goals," he said. "The coalition drawdown will have an impact on Afghanistan's economy, which is likely to decline after 2014."

And in Pakistan, which faces no real prospects for sustainable economic growth, Clapper said, "the government has not instituted much-needed policy and tax reforms." On a more positive note, he continued, the Pakistani military continues its efforts to eliminate the al-Qaida and Taliban safe havens in the federally administered tribal areas.

China continues to supplement its military capabilities by strengthening its maritime law enforcement efforts in support of its claims in the South and East China Seas, he said.

"Closer to home," Clapper continued, "despite positive trends toward democracy and economic development, Latin America and the Caribbean contend with weak institutions, slow recovery from devastating natural disasters and drug-related violence and trafficking."

The intelligence director concluded his testimony by repeating his warning about sequestration spending cuts.

"So in sum, given the magnitude and complexity of our global responsibilities, insightful, persistent and comprehensive intelligence, at least in my mind, has never been more important or more urgent," he said. "So I have trouble reconciling this imperative with sequestration."

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HAGEL'S STATEMENT ON SYRIA BEFORE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE

DOD Photo:  Secretary Of Defense Chuck Hagel

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Statement on Syria before the Senate Armed Services Committee

As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Washington, D.C., Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Senator McCain, thank you.

Senator King, thank you.

I think the Chairman and I both very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue today. And I would like to make a brief statement to lay out some of the general parameters on what we're doing, and then I think the Chairman has a very short statement, then we'll get into whatever you want to talk about.

First, the policy of the United States government is to work with allies and partners, as you both know, and as well as the Syrian opposition to provide humanitarian assistance across Syria and the region. And it's to hasten the end of violence, to bring about a political transition to a post-Assad authority that will restore stability, respect the rights of all its people and prevent Syria from becoming a safe haven for extremists, and take the necessary actions to secure Syria's chemical and biological weapons.

The best outcome for Syria – and the region – I think as we all agree is a negotiated political transition. The role of the Department of Defense is to support broader U.S. diplomatic efforts while ensuring that the U.S. military is fully prepared to protect America's interests and meet our security commitments to the region.

In pursuit of a negotiated political solution in Syria, the U.S. government is working to mobilize the international community, further isolate the Assad regime and support the moderate Syrian opposition. The United States has acknowledged the Syrian Opposition Coalition, the SOC, as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people and committed to provide them with $117 million in nonlethal assistance including communications and medical equipment. The State Department and USAID are providing technical assistance to the opposition which includes training for over 1,500 Syrian leaders and activists from over 100 local councils. The goal is to strengthen these opposition groups that share the international community's vision for Syria's future and minimize the influence of extremists. Additionally, President Obama has directed his national security team to increase nonlethal assistance to both the SOC and the Supreme Military Council, the SMC. We are working now to assess how to allocate and deliver that additional assistance.

The Department of State and USAID with support from other U.S. government agencies are working to alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Syria and help the more than one million Syrian refugees who have fled to neighboring countries. To date the United States has provided $385 million in humanitarian assistance, including emergency medical care and supplies, food and shelter. The United States is the largest single bilateral provider of humanitarian aid to the Syrian people. The United States is leading efforts to ensure that other countries make good on the $1.5 billion in commitments made at the international humanitarian pledging conference for Syria held in Kuwait earlier this year. We're also working through diplomatic and military channels to encourage Russia and China to do more to help resolve this crisis, and I have conveyed the message in recent calls with both my Russian and Chinese counterparts.

Internationally, the United States has worked with the E.U., Arab League, GCC countries and over 50 countries to build a robust sanctions regime designed to pressure the Syrian government and bring about an end to the conflict. These sanctions are having an impact on the Assad regime's ability to access the international financial system and raise foreign currency revenue.

In support of U.S. government efforts to respond to the crisis, the Department of Defense has expanded security consultations with key allies and partners in the region and in Europe, ensured that the U.S. military is strategically postured in the region and engaged in robust military planning for a range of contingencies.

U.S. military leaders are in regular communications with senior allied military leaders. Over the past year we have synchronized defense planning with several nations including Canada, the United Kingdom and France. Following the president's recent trip to Israel and Jordan, on Saturday, I will travel to the region and meet with defense leaders of Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE to review our regional security efforts. Secretary Kerry will be in Turkey this weekend, discussing Syria with the Turkish government and other key partners. The President's National Security Adviser has just returned from Russia where he would discuss Syria with Russian leaders, and Chairman Dempsey will be in China this week discussing Syria with Chinese leaders.

Last December the Department of Defense deployed Patriot missile batteries to southern Turkey for the protection of our NATO Ally. Since last year a small team of U.S. military experts has been working in Jordan on planning related to chemical weapons and preventing a spillover of violence across Jordan's borders. Last week I ordered the deployment of a U.S. Army headquarters element to enhance this effort in Amman. These personnel will continue to work alongside the Jordanian Armed Forces to improve readiness and prepare for a number of scenarios.

Through our Cooperative Threat rReduction program, the Department of Defense personnel and our interagency partners are also working closely with Syria's neighbors, including Jordan, Turkey and Iraq to help them counter the threat from Syria's chemical weapons. As part of this effort, the Department of Defense is funding over $70 million for activities in Jordan including providing training and equipment to detect and stop any chemical weapons transfers along its border with Syria and developing Jordanian capacity to identify and secure chemical weapons assets.

President Obama has made clear that if Assad and those under his command use chemical weapons or fail to meet their obligations to secure them, there will be consequences and they will be held accountable. The Department of Defense has plans in place to respond to the full range of chemical weapon scenarios.

The U.S. military is constantly updating and adjusting tactical military planning to account for the rapidly shifting situation on the ground and to prepare for additional new contingencies, not only those associated with the Syrian regime's chemical weapons but also the potential spillover of violence across Syria's borders that could threaten Allies and partners.

While I cannot discuss specific plans in an open session, we have been developing options and planning for post-Assad Syria and we will continue to provide the President and Congress with our assessment of options for U.S. military intervention.

The reality is that this is a complex and difficult situation, as everyone on this committee knows. The killing of innocents by the Syrian regime is tragic. The Assad regime is intent on maintaining power. The conflict within Syria has developed along dangerous sectarian lines. And the opposition has not yet sufficiently organized itself politically or militarily.

We have an obligation and responsibility to think through the consequences of any direct U.S. military action in Syria. Military intervention at this point could hinder humanitarian relief operations. It could embroil the United States in a significant, lengthy, and uncertain military commitment. Unilateral military action could strain other key international partnerships, as no international or regional consensus on supporting armed intervention now exists. And finally, a military intervention could have the unintended consequence of bringing the United States into a broader regional conflict or a proxy war.

Military intervention is always an option. It should be an option, but an option of last resort.

The best outcome for Syria – and the region – is negotiated political transition to a post-Assad Syria.

Having said that, the responsibility of the Department of Defense is to protect America's national security and to provide the President with a full range of options for any contingency. The United States military is prepared to respond at the President's direction. We will continue to work with our allies and partners to defend our interests, meet security commitments in the region and support efforts to achieve a political solution to the crisis.

And I'll look forward to your questions and would ask now if General Dempsey has some remarks.

GEN. JACOBY TESTIFIES REGARDING NORTHCOM'S WATCH

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Northcom Maintains Watch Over Homeland, Commander Says
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 19, 2013 - "We have the watch," the commander of U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command told Congress today, emphasizing the dual commands' vigilance in protecting the homeland.

"That's my No. 1 priority mission," Army Gen. Charles H. Jacoby Jr. told the Senate Armed Services Committee, while acknowledging concerns that budget uncertainties could hamper the commands' ability to step ahead of evolving threats.

Jacoby reported on successes of Operation Noble Eagle, a mission stood up immediately after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and that continues today, providing "well-honed and uncompromising 24/7 defense of our skies."

But the security environment is becoming "increasingly complex and dynamic," he warned. "Threats are adapting and evolving. Technologies advance and proliferate, creating greater vulnerability in the homeland than ever before."

This complicates the homeland defense mission, he said, from cyber and ballistic missile defense to efforts to counter transnational criminal organizations.

Budget uncertainties add another wrinkle, he said, injecting additional uncertainties in what capabilities can be developed or procured to deal with these threats.

"Readiness concerns are sure to grow," Jacoby said. The most pressing, he said, will be unforecasted cuts to training and exercise programs that he called "fundamental to building partnerships essential for responding to events in the homeland."

"Unexpected loss of service capabilities and readiness could also, in the future, erode our ability to conduct our critical homeland defense missions," he said.

In the midst of these uncertainties, Northcom and NORAD will remain committed to deterring, preventing and defeating aggression against the United States and Canada, Jacoby said.
Meanwhile, Northcom also continues to focus on its mission of providing defense support to civil authorities, as required.

"Our citizens have a high expectation of our ability to defend and support them here in the homeland, and rightfully so," Jacoby told the Senate panel. "In the event of a natural or manmade disaster, Northcom meets those expectations by leveraging a tremendous capability and capacity of the Defense Department to support a lead agency," such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Jacoby recognized Northcom's role in interagency response to Hurricane Sandy. "Hurricane Sandy offered us a glimpse of what a complex catastrophe which spanned several states and regions could look like," he said.

Jacoby called the appointment of dual-status commanders during the response one of the most important initiatives in the area of defense support to civil authorities in a decade that promotes a unity of effort among federal and state responders.

He pledged to continue maturing the successful dual-status command construct that Congress approved through the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act "so we will be ready to act swiftly and with unity of effort when the unthinkable happens and we are called."

In addition, he vowed to continue advancing security cooperation efforts with Mexico and the Bahamas. These efforts help the United States and its neighbors stand as a united force against their common goals, he said.

"When it comes to the security of North America and the shared pursuit of enduring stability and prosperity, we cannot afford to work in isolation," Jacoby said in his prepared statement.

CYBERCOMMAND ON OFFENSE AND DEFENSE

Credit:  U.S. Navy.

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Cybercom Builds Teams for Offense, Defense in Cyberspace
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 12, 2013 - As escalating rounds of exploits and attacks mar the strategic landscape of cyberspace, U.S. Cyber Command is standing up a highly trained cadre focused on national defense in that domain, the Cybercom commander told Congress today.

Army Gen. Keith B. Alexander told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the command is developing teams that will protect the nation's interests in cyberspace, along with tactics, techniques and procedures, and doctrine describing how the teams will work in that environment.

"These defend-the-nation teams are not defensive teams, these are offensive teams that the Defense Department would use to defend the nation if it were attacked in cyberspace," said Alexander, who also serves as National Security Agency director. "Thirteen of the teams we're creating are for that mission set alone. We're also creating 27 teams that would support combatant commands and their planning process for offensive cyber capabilities."

Cybercom also has a series of teams that will defend DOD networks in cyberspace, the general said.

The intent at Cybercom is to stand up roughly one-third of the teams by September, the next third by September 2014, and the final third by September 2015, he added.

"Those three sets of teams are the core construct for what we're working on with the services to develop our cyber cadre," he said, adding that the effort is on track thanks to efforts by the service chiefs, who are pushing the initiative.

Training is key to the teams' development, the general said. "The most important partnership we have with NSA and others is in ensuring that training standards are at the highest level," he added.

Alexander told the panel that, from Cybercom's perspective, the environment on the strategic landscape of cyberspace is becoming more contentious.

"Cyber effects are growing. We've seen attacks on Wall Street -- 140 over the last six months -- grow significantly. In August, we saw a destructive attack on Saudi Aramco, where data on over 30,000 systems was destroyed," he said.

In industry, the antivirus community of companies believes attacks will increase this year, Alexander said, "and there's a lot we need to do to prepare for this."

The general said command and control is an important part of Cybercom's cyber strategy. Combatant commands and service chiefs are looking at the command and control of working together, he said.

"We've done a lot of work on that, and have ironed out how the joint cyber centers at each combatant command will work with Cyber Command, how we push information back and forth, and how we'll have operational and direct support of teams operating in their areas," Alexander said. "We'll have more to do on this as the teams come online."

Another important part of the strategy is situational awareness, the general said, or seeing an attack unfold in cyberspace.

"Today, seeing that attack is almost impossible for the Defense Department," he said. "We would probably not see an attack on Wall Street -- it's going to be seen by the private sector first, and that [highlights] a key need for information sharing."

Such sharing has to be real-time from Internet service providers to the Defense Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, all at the same time, the general said.

"If we're going to see [an attack] in time to make a difference, we have to see it in real time," he said. And companies that are sharing the information with the Defense Department have to have protection against privacy lawsuits from customers and other potential liabilities, he added.

Legislation that would have provided some of these protections along with a national cybersecurity framework failed to pass the Senate in August, and in an Executive Order signed Feb. 12, President Barack Obama directed federal departments and agencies to use existing authorities to provide better cybersecurity for the nation.

"The Executive Order issued last month is a step in the right direction, but it does not take away the need for cyber legislation," Alexander said, pointing out that that civil liberties, oversight and compliance are critical for Cyber Command and NSA in operating in cyberspace.

"We take that requirement sincerely and to heart, ... [and] we can do both -- protect civil liberties and privacy and protect our nation in cyberspace," he said. "That's one of the things we need to educate the American people about."

Cyber Command experts also are building an operational picture the command would share with combatant commands, the DHS, the FBI and other national leaders, and the command also is working hard on authorities and policies related to DOD activities in cyberspace, Alexander said.

"This is a new area for many of our folks, especially within the administration, within Congress and for the American people," he acknowledged. "We're being cautious in ensuring that we're doing that exactly right and sharing the information we have with Congress."

No one actor, the general added, "is to blame for our current level of preparedness in cyberspace."

"We must address this as a team, sharing unique insights across government and with the private sector," he added. "We must leverage the nation's ingenuity through an exceptional cyber workforce and rapid technological innovation."

The U.S. government has made significant strides in defining cyber doctrine, organizing cyber capabilities and building cyber capacity, Alexander told the panel.

"We must do much more to sustain our momentum," he added, "in an environment where adversary capabilities continue to evolve as fast as or faster than our own."

ISAF COMMANDER GEN. JOHN ALLEN UNDER INVESTIGATION

Marine Corps Gen. John R. Allen, ISAF Commander  

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

DOD Inspector General Investigates ISAF Commander
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service

ABOARD A MILITARY AIRCRAFT, Nov. 13, 2012 - The Defense Department inspector general has opened an investigation of Marine Corps Gen. John R. Allen, commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said today in a statement.

The statement said the FBI referred a matter involving Allen to the Defense Department on Nov. 11.

Today, Panetta directed that the matter be referred to the DOD IG for investigation and informed the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The House Armed Services Committee also has been notified, he said.

"While the matter is under investigation and before the facts are determined, General Allen will remain ISAF commander," the secretary said.

"His leadership has been instrumental in achieving the significant progress that ISAF, working alongside our Afghan partners, has made in bringing greater security to the Afghan people," Panetta added, "and in ensuring that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists. He is entitled to due process in this matter."

Allen took over as ISAF commander and commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan in July 2011. President Barack Obama recently nominated him to succeed Navy Adm. James G. Stavridis as commander of U.S. European Command and as NATO's supreme allied commander for Europe.

Obama also nominated Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., now assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, to succeed Allen in Afghanistan. Panetta said he has asked the president, who has agreed, to put Allen's nomination on hold until the relevant facts are determined.

The secretary also said he has asked the ranking members of the Senate Armed Services Committee – Sen. Carl Levin, a Democrat from Michigan, and Sen. John McCain, a Republican from Arizona -- that they delay tomorrow's scheduled confirmation hearing on Allen's pending nomination.

"I respectfully requested that the Senate act promptly on [Dunford's] nomination," Panetta added.

SENATORS OPPOSE QUICK WITHDRAWAL FROM AFGHANISTAN

Photo:   Sandstorm In Afghanistan.  Credit:  U.S. Navy.
FROM:  U.S. SENATOR CARL LEVIN’S WEBSITE:
Senators: Avoid 'premature' cuts of Afghan forces

Thursday, April 26, 2012
WASHINGTON – Four senior members of the Senate Armed Services Committee have written to President Obama regarding the prospect of reductions to the end-strength of the Afghan National Security Forces, urging him to reject “premature and militarily unjustified reductions” in those forces.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the committee’s chairman; Sen. John McCain R-Ariz., the ranking Republican; Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.; and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., wrote the letter in response to public reports that the United States and its NATO allies are considering reductions of roughly one-third in troop levels for Afghanistan’s army and police after the planned handover of security responsibility to the Afghans in 2014.
“A key part of our Afghanistan strategy has been that, as U.S. and coalition forces draw down, increasing numbers of capable Afghan forces will be available to sustain and expand the hard-won gains that U.S., coalition, and Afghan forces have secured at great cost in blood and treasure,” the senators write. “Achieving this objective requires correctly sizing the ANSF to provide enduring security for their country, and ensuring the funding necessary to support that end-strength.”

The letter encourages the president to base Afghan force structure decisions “on a realistic assessment of the conditions they will be facing” when Afghan security forces have the security lead throughout the country and to urge the international community to provide the financial support needed to field adequate Afghan forces.

SENIOR OFFICIALS TAKE QUESTIONS ON AFGHANISTAN BEFORE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE

The following excerpt is from the Department of Defense American Forces Press e-mail:

Officials Discuss Troop Numbers, Partnership With Afghanistan

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 22, 2012 - Troop numbers -- both Afghan and coalition -- were among the questions posed to senior officials during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee today.

Marine Corps Gen. John R. Allen, the commander of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, and James N. Miller, acting undersecretary of defense for policy, told senators that training Afghan soldiers and police is going well, but it will require patience to ensure the job is done correctly.

The Afghan national security forces will surge to 352,000 later this year. But the Afghan government cannot afford to keep that many people in the security forces long-term, so that number will come down in the future, Allen said.

One study, the general said, points to a long-term force in the vicinity of 230,000.

"But there are a number of different options," he added, "and we're continuing to evaluate what those options might be, all the way from the current force, ... which will continue to exist for several years once we have fielded it, down to a force that was smaller than [230,000], which probably doesn't have the right ... combination of capabilities."

Any decision on the size of the force will be made in the future by Afghan leaders working with coalition personnel, Allen said. What's more, any reduction must be made only after a careful study of conditions on the ground. "That security environment will be ultimately the key indicator of whether that drawdown should ultimately occur, so it'll be conditions-based," the general said.

Allen submits the metrics involved with these studies every six months. The next set of statistics will include an evaluation of scenarios after December 2014.

The United States has 89,000 troops in Afghanistan today. That number will go down by 23,000 by the end of the summer fighting season. Allen told the Senate panel that once that is done he will examine the size of the force and the likely threat it will face in 2013. "My opinion is that we will need significant combat power in 2013," he said.

Allen said 68,000 U.S. troops "is a good going-in number," but he told the senators he owes the president further analysis on that issue.

Miller stressed the need for a strategic partnership with Afghanistan that will last long after Afghans take full security control of their nation by the end of 2014.

"The president has stated clearly that we have an enduring commitment to Afghanistan, and the strategic partnership will be a concrete instantiation of that," he said. "There will be a lot of work to do after that, but it's a critical milestone."

Despite the past tumultuous months, Miller said, he is encouraged by progress made in negotiating the strategic partnership.

Senators also asked the men about corruption and Pakistan. A number of programs aimed at curbing government corruption appear to be making progress, Allen said. He praised Afghan President Hamid Karzai for his "good work" on the issue.

"He has appointed a presidential executive commission, headed by Minister of Finance [Omar] Zakhilwal, to partner with ISAF and with the international community on the issues of reclaiming borders, inland customs depots, and airports," he said. "That's an important move."

The general told the senators he has not seen any change in the relationship between Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency and the Haqqani network, an issue that has contributed to strained relations between the United States and Pakistan.

Iran also is a neighbor of Afghanistan, and Iranian influence has to be taken into account as Afghan national security forces take control, the general said.

"Just as nature abhors a vacuum, so do geopolitics," he said. "And should the United States leave Afghanistan -- should ISAF, should NATO leave Afghanistan -- that would create, in my mind, for all intents and purposes, a geopolitical vacuum, ahead, however, of the [Afghan forces] being ready to take full security."

Miller stressed that a stable Afghanistan is in the interests of all nations in the region.

"While the Iranians may not be happy about an American presence there, ... nonetheless, the Afghan people desire it," he said. "And that presence ultimately works to Iran's benefit as well, because it will affect the cross-border flow of narcotics, the cross-border flow of weapons and human trafficking."

About 1.5 million Afghan refugees are in Iran, Miller noted. "They might be able to go home in a stable Afghanistan," he said.

Miller reiterated the importance of the strategic partnership. It is essential for security and also affects perceptions of the Taliban and others, including Iran, he said.

Iranian leaders have played both sides of the fence in Afghanistan, Miller said.

"They have provided some support to the Afghan government and they've provided some support to the Taliban," he told the panel. "If they see it in their interest to stir the pot and so forth, I think that ... the strategic partnership, the advancement of the [Afghan forces] and the clear expression of commitment by the United States and the coalition is going to have to cause them to recalculate. And that's essential."