Friday, November 6, 2009

Top Military Adviser: Obama Isn't Dithering

By James Kitfield  

Michael Mullen

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

As President Obama contemplates what may well prove the most momentous decision of his presidency, what to do about a failing war in Afghanistan, he has not suffered from a lack of advice. Many Republicans have accused him of dithering, recommending that he immediately grant Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request for as many as 44,000 additional troops. Meanwhile, many Democrats argue that he should narrow the mission and refuse to escalate a war they fear is becoming an unwinnable quagmire.

Less has been heard in public recently from the president's top military adviser, Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. On Nov. 4, National Journal staff correspondent James Kitfield and Government Executive editor in chief Tim Clark spoke with Mullen about his views on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Edited excerpts from that interview follow.

Q: Now that the Afghan elections have been settled, some Republicans have redoubled their criticism that Obama is "dithering." The administration counters that they are being duly deliberative. Which has the process been in your view, dithering or deliberative?

Mullen: Well, from my perspective it's been very deliberative. Actually, in discussions I've had in the last few days with General McChrystal and [the Central Command head, General David] Petraeus, one of the points they made is that these deliberations have really shed light in areas that are very important to review in great depth and breadth to understand a very, very complex situation.

Secondly, this is a huge decision. It's a huge decision for the president, for our country and for the 41 other countries that are providing combat troops to Afghanistan. And probably most importantly, it's a huge decision for the Afghan people. So as we look at this nexus of terrorism in this very complex region that includes Pakistan and Afghanistan, there have been a lot of questions and clarifications involved in our discussions. Quite frankly, I applaud that. And I do expect that the president will make a decision in the next few weeks.

Q: Yet haven't you recently admitted to feeling a sense of urgency about the decision?

Mullen: Well, I talked about a sense of urgency on Afghanistan over a year ago. What I saw then was a deteriorating security situation, a much more virulent insurgency, and at that time clearly an inability to resource what we needed to resource in order to arrest it.

So now it's a year later, and we've seen all that increase in terms of the potency of the insurgency.... Right now, this one's going in the wrong direction as far as we're concerned. So my sense of urgency has been the need to make decisions to resource this in a way that we can reverse the momentum of that Taliban, and reverse the deterioration of the overall security situation.

Q: We now know that our partner going forward will still be Afghan President Hamid Karzai. How confident are you that he will finally take corruption seriously?

Mullen: Well, I think he has to take ownership for his own country first of all. We are extremely concerned about the level of corruption and the legitimacy of his government. One of the three legs of the counterinsurgency stool is having a functioning government, and not just the central government in Kabul. I don't expect we are ever going to have a situation where there is, quote, a "strong central government" in Kabul, though historically Afghanistan did have a central government that functioned. We also need governance in the provinces, in the districts and in the sub-districts.

The people of Afghanistan want support from their government that's been missing for some time. There is huge frustration about that, so the legitimacy of the government really needs to be in the eyes of the Afghan people. At best that legitimacy is in question right now, and, at worst, it doesn't exist.

Q: How soon will we know whether or not President Karzai will embrace anti-corruption reforms that he has steadfastly resisted in the past?

Mullen: I think it will be evident pretty quickly. We have a very effective ambassador in Kabul [in retired Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry], and he is joined at the hip with General McChrystal, both of whom are engaged with the Afghan leadership all the time.

Q: Some opponents of deploying additional U.S. troops argue that we can narrow the mission to one strictly focused on counter-terrorism, while accelerating the transfer of responsibilities to the Afghan Army and police. Do you think that is a viable option?

Mullen: I believe that this is a classic counterinsurgency campaign. The counter-terrorism piece represents an important part; you do need to go out and disrupt the enemy. But in the end, this is about the people. Ultimately, the Afghan people are going to throw the bad guys out. Kinetic [combat] actions are not going to do it.

We are already starting to see positive effects in Helmand, where we sent the Marines in July. We've seen a classic counterinsurgency response where, once security exists and local leaders feel secure and empowered, then the people begin feeling the same way and they start to provide intelligence about where the bad guys are. It's a virtuous cycle. And in many places in Afghanistan, the exact opposite dynamic is taking place because we don't have enough troops to be out securing the people. So from my standpoint, the counter-terrorism piece of this campaign is absolutely critical, but it's just a part of an overall counterinsurgency approach.

Q: At a recent ministerial meeting, European defense ministers publicly embraced General McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy, but their national governments have failed to offer up many additional troops. If Obama approves the request for tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops and the Europeans stay on the sidelines, do you worry that the American public will conclude that our NATO allies are not carrying their share of the burden?

Mullen: If you asked me that a year ago my answer would have been harsher, but since the NATO Summit last April there has been significant positive movement inside NATO to support this effort. Since then we have stood up a three-star [corps] headquarters in Afghanistan that has become a NATO headquarters, and that was approved by the alliance in a matter of a few days. I've never seen NATO move so quickly on a major issue.... In my engagement with my NATO counterparts, I've also seen increasing enthusiasm for supporting the Afghan effort. In fact, countries which have added forces in Afghanistan over the last year include the British, Spanish, French, Italians, Germans and others. A year ago I wouldn't have thought that was a realistic possibility.

Q: But haven't the numbers of additional NATO troops been relatively small?

Mullen: I don't think it's very realistic to think NATO is going to add thousands and thousands of additional troops. But it's not just about troops because there is a requirement for civilian capacity as well. We need trainers for the Afghan national police; we need legal advice and individuals who can work on rule of law issues and those kinds of institutional reforms. So in general I just see a much more positive approach on the part of NATO.

Also, back to that ministerial meeting you spoke of... they are clearly waiting for the United States as a member of NATO to signal what comes next. Once that signal is sent by the United States, I really think we'll see some positive results from NATO.

Q: While Washington debates the way forward in Afghanistan, Pakistani security forces have finally launched an offensive into South Waziristan. As someone who has cultivated a close relationship with your Pakistani counterpart, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, do you think the Pakistanis have finally realized the threat posed to their country by the Taliban?

Mullen: Certainly I think General Kayani understands the Taliban are a serious, serious threat to Pakistan. And I believe many of the people of Pakistan feel the same way. Just look at the terrorist bombings that have occurred in the last couple of weeks, where increasingly it's Pakistani civilians who are being killed. So they are responding out of recognition of how serious a threat these extremists groups represent.... I think the Pakistani leadership now recognizes the seriousness of the situation.

Mullen: Well, having said all that, Pakistan remains very concerned about India. That's not going to go away overnight, and we're not going to be able to wish that away. But this region remains the epicenter of terrorism in the world.... We can't afford to lose focus on this problem, in my view, and that means sustaining a working relationship with Pakistan.

Whenever I go to Pakistan and Afghanistan, one of the first questions on everyone's lips is, "Are you going to leave and abandon us again?" We did that in the past. We've been down that road.

Q: Do you think the ongoing debate about our strategy in Afghanistan is interpreted as "looking for the exits" by Pakistan?

Mullen: Well, the public debate has been heavily skewed to how many troops we will have in Afghanistan. But I assure you that the discussions I have focus very clearly on getting Pakistan right too. We all recognize that the al-Qaeda leadership resides there, and that's really what so much of this is about. We have not lost focus on that fact.

Q: If Obama approves the request for more troops, will you be forced to go to Congress and ask for another emergency supplemental to pay for the surge in forces?

Mullen: In that case, from what I can see there will be a requirement for an emergency supplemental. That said, in fiscal year 2010 we are scheduled to have a fairly dramatic drawdown of forces from Iraq. We are going from roughly 115,000 troops today to about 50,000 by the end of next August. And of course the resources we need going forward will depend on President Obama's decision on whether or not to send additional forces to Afghanistan. But from what I can see at this point, I certainly think there will be a requirement for a supplemental. I just don't know exactly what size it will be.

Q: If the administration decides to send something close to the 44,000 troops favored by General McChrystal, it will once again cut short the time troops spend at home between combat deployments. Do you worry that we may be approaching a tipping point where military families become exhausted by back-to-back deployments and opt out of service?

Mullen: We must address the difficulties, stress and strain that our young men and women who wear the uniform and their families have been through. In the Army, the brigade combat teams are typically finishing up their fourth deployment, so the next big move for them will be the fifth deployment. In some of our units such as Special Forces, there have been many more deployments than that, although they are typically not as long.

Having said all that, the Army now has 70,000 more people in uniform than in 2004. As far as the units we are looking at who are coming up for rotation in the next year, most of them will have been home for nearly 18 months, though some will have had only 12 months between combat deployments. So we've improved from roughly a 1-to-1 rotation cycle [one year deployed, one year at home] to a 1-to-1.5 rotation cycle. Of course what happens now will depend on troop demands for Afghanistan, but assuming we withdraw from Iraq as planned in 2010, we should be able to gradually increase the dwell time between deployments for the Army and Marine Corps, who are the most stressed.

I will also tell you that as I engage young soldiers and Marines around the world, they are unbelievably resilient and proud of what they are doing. They know they can succeed in Afghanistan, just as they succeeded in Iraq. Frankly, they are part of the best military that I've seen in the over 40 years I've been privileged to wear this uniform. So I have great confidence in them.