By General William "Kip" Ward, Commander, U.S. Africa Command
General Bantz Craddock, Commander, U.S. European Command
Admiral James Stavridis, Commander, U.S. Southern Command
House Armed Services Committee  Print     Share  

WASHINGTON, D.C., 

Mar 13, 2008 — (NOTE: Some non-AFRICOM testimony is summarized)

Chaired by Representative Ike Skelton (Democrat-Missouri)

Witnesses:
General Bantz Craddock, Commander, U.S. European Command
Admiral James Stavridis, Commander, U.S. Southern Command
General William Ward, Commander, U.S. Africa Command

REP. SKELTON: Good day. The committee will come to order.

We will address the posture of three commands representing significant geographic diversity -- the U.S. European Command, the U.S. Southern Command, and the new Africa Command.

Our witnesses are General John Craddock, Admiral James Stavridis, and General Kip Ward. It's great to have each of you here, and we thank you each for the work that you do, as well as for the young men and young women within your command.

General Craddock, I remain deeply concerned about our efforts in Afghanistan. There's been a great deal of discussion about NATO's ability to lead the fight there, hampered in part by the caveats that many of our NATO allies have placed on their troops.

And recently you said these caveats, like shortfalls, increase the risk to every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine employed in theater. Now, general, I couldn't agree with you more, and I have serious concerns about these caveats and NATO's unfulfilled commitments.

But also, I believe the United States can and must demonstrate better leadership in Afghanistan. We're deploying an additional 3,400 Marines to shore up the fight in the south and train and equip the Afghan national security forces. But when our military and the civilian leadership says that in Afghanistan we do what we can rather than do what we must, I think that sends a strong signal to Europe that we ourselves are not completely committed to a successful outcome. I would have you address that.

General Ward, Admiral Stavridis, our committee has given a great deal of thought recently to the roles and missions of the armed forces and the weakness in the interagency system. I note that both you and your commands are undertaking groundbreaking work to integrate the interagency partners. I commend you for that and I hope we will hear something more from each of you on that.

Combatant commands, particularly SOUTHCOM, have excelled in providing short-term humanitarian emergency assistance after natural disasters. I'm interested in the example that SOUTHCOM and the emerging AFRICOM are placing on the promotion of internal security, trade and economic prosperity within your areas of responsibility.

Let me say a word about strategic risk. Our attention is so focused on Iraq, we are hard-pressed to devote the necessary attention to emerging security issues in other parts of the world. Within the last month, we saw a serious effort to topple the government of Chad and a brief but potentially serious border dispute between Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela. We must rebalance our military to be prepared for these sorts of unexpected challenges in the event that they turn into truly serious contingencies.

Now, before I recognize any of you gentlemen for your testimony, I ask my friend who's serving as ranking member today, Jim Saxton, the gentleman from New Jersey, for any statement.

REP. JIM SAXTON (R-NJ): Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Today this committee will consider the challenges and opportunities that face the U.S. European Command, the U.S. Southern Command and the newly formed U.S. Africa Command. These combined areas of responsibility of these commands include over 120 countries and cover almost 40 million square miles. In fact, the range of possible topics today is broad as it reaches throughout these commands.

I'd like to thank General Craddock, Admiral Stavridis and General Ward for appearing before us today to provide their unique insights and assessments and to explain how the president's fiscal year 2009 budget request reflects these operations, exercises and initiatives within the respective AORs.

General Craddock, I would like to begin by highlighting a concern that Ranking Member Hunter has, who, of course, regrets that he's not able to be with us today. He discussed it at the Central Command hearing last week, and that raises some questions regarding NATO and associated issues.

In the coming weeks, the United States will deploy 3,200 additional Marines to Afghanistan, and over 2,000 of these men and women will bolster the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force presence in the southern part of the country. Yet there appears to be some ambiguity about the command and these additional forces.

From your perspective, Mr. Hunter would like to ask, will these Marines fall under NATO ISAF or CENTCOM operational control? What will be the missions of these forces? Under which rules of engagement will these forces operate, under ISAF's or the United States?

More broadly, does the current ISAF and CENTCOM division of labor make sense, and does it maximize the effectiveness of the capabilities provided by U.S. forces? The division of labor in Afghanistan also leads to a number of NATO-specific questions regarding our European allies' military capabilities and ability to operate in a combat environment. I note that despite NATO's minimum military requirement that allies spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on their militaries, fewer than half of the 26 allies actually do so. I didn't know that.

It seems that the alliance emphasis on transformation, coupled with the European Union's nations' growing focus on security and defense has not resulted in noticeable increases in expenditures and capabilities. For example, NATO nations have long recognized a significant shortfall in strategic airlift, yet these nations' combined acquisition of C-17s relies in large part on U.S. contributions.

So Mr. Hunter wonders, how can we persuade our friends to transform and modernize their militaries so that we can effectively participate in these combat operations? And at the outset, let me say that I know General Craddock is very mindful of these issues because he and I talked about them, I believe, just yesterday.

Developing our partners' military capabilities is also a common theme within the new Africa Command, especially given the potential of the vast ungoverned and ungoverned spaces on the continent to become safe havens for terrorists. I call them hot spots. There is little argument that (partnering) with African nations can result in more secure borders -- that partnering, excuse me, with African nations can result in more secure borders, more responsibility and more capable military forces and security institutions that are more responsive to national governments and can help to close the doors of any safe havens located there.

However, we do understand that the European Command has long worked with those nations, and there remains some skepticism that the creation of the new geographic combatant command is necessary or even politically acceptable to the African national governments and the African Union.

General Ward, please provide your perspective on why the creation of the African Command is in the U.S. national security interest and how your command will expand on those partnering efforts traditionally undertaken by the European Command.
Finally, Admiral, if you would -- we understand the focus on transnational security challenges in your area of responsibility. The challenge of combating illegal drug production and trafficking continues to require the cooperation of our regional and interagency partners. Drug dealers in the region are adaptive and creative, using self-propelled semi-submersibles to move drugs as well as traditional overland and oversea methods.

I'm interested in learning about SOUTHCOM's efforts against narco-trafficking, especially the use of semi-submarines, and its work with partner nations to address counterdrug challenges.

In particular, some experts have noted that the result of U.S. assistance -- as a result of U.S. assistance, Colombia has been emerging as a regional leader in democracy and as a counterbalance to the socialist movement led by Venezuela President Hugo Chavez and his left-leaning supporters in Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Cuba.
However, I understand that despite CubaaaaaaaaaÃ?s -- Cuban officials' repeated requests of his neighbors to deny safe havens to terrorists, it was necessary for Colombia to raid the FARC terrorist base more than a mile into Ecuador earlier this month. Also it is reported that documents found in several FARC computers may indicate possible complicity of senior Ecuadorian and Venezuelan officials.

Admiral, please provide your insights into these tensions caused by narco-trafficking and terrorism in the region and how your command is addressing the military and security needs of our partners there. I'm also interested in your perspective on Colombia's role as a regional democratic leader and the future outlook for the U.S. military presence and support, both in Colombia and within the region as a whole.
Chairman Skelton, thank you again for permitting me to make this statement, and I will look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.

REP. SKELTON: I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.

We will ask the witnesses to testify. General Craddock, we will -- you're up at bat.

GEN. CRADDOCK: Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, it is indeed my privilege to appear today as the commander of the United States European Command. Mr. Chairman, I've submitted a written statement and I ask that it be made a part of the record.

REP. SKELTON: Let the written statements of each of the witnesses be admitted without objection.

GEN. CRADDOCK: Thank you. And I'm also privileged to be here today with two gifted combatant commanders and longtime friends. And I indeed could not ask for more capable wing men than Admiral Jim Stavridis and General Kip Ward.

Over the past 15 months, I've had the honor of commanding the men and women of the European Command. And I am here to report that they remain absolutely committed to our mission. The nation is well-served by these remarkably talented, dedicated and enthusiastic soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen and the families that support and sustain them.

And if you would permit me, I would like to introduce my senior noncommissioned officer in the European Command, Command Sergeant Major Mark Farley.
Mark, would you please stand up?

It's important that he's here today, because he represents all members of the EUCOM force, the officers and the enlisted, and he's continually out and about across the command, checking on the quality of life, the training conditions and the morale. He and his fellow non-commissioned officers are essential to what we do every day. Their deeds embody the warrior spirit.

Thank you, Sergeant Major. (Applause.)

American forces, those of the NATO alliance and 16 other nations are now serving together in operations on three continents. The more than 60,000 troops currently deployed under my command as the Supreme Allied Commander Europe are a visible and effective demonstration of our continuing resolve to project stability and to deter, disrupt and defend against threats to the alliance wherever they occur.

As you know, every day European Command forces are also deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The service members assigned to EUCOM are included in our global force pool and stand available for missions as required.

While support for the Global War on Terror is our overarching priority, EUCOM is also focused on sustaining Europe as a global partner and furthering U.S. security relationships. Our objectives include promoting lasting security and stability, maintaining the ability to employ the full range of capabilities across the spectrum of conflict, and fostering the growth of partner nation capacity and capability.

Our forward-based and rotational forces are powerful and visible instruments of national influence and our international commitment. Central to EUCOM's efforts is the completion of our Strategic Theater Transformation Plan. Our transformation plan is synchronized with the Department of Defense, the joint staff, individual services and NATO to ensure that our efforts are mutually supportive.

A key development over the past year was the initiation of the United States Africa Command, created in recognition of the growing importance of Africa. The establishment of AFRICOM remains a work in progress. European Command has provided and will continue to make available personnel, subject-matter expertise and resources to ensure AFRICOM's future success.

NATO remains committed to collective security and increasingly to a broader and more comprehensive view of security in an interdependent world. It has taken the lead for security and stability in Afghanistan and now has over 47,000 troops deployed to the International Security Assistance Force, ISAF. This effort remains NATO's most important and challenging mission.

NATO's Kosovo mission will continue following that country's declaration of independence. KFOR, the Kosovo Force, is well-trained, well-prepared, and committed to providing a safe and secure environment. The European Command fully supports this effort. Approximately 10 percent of the 16,000 international troops currently in Kosovo are United States forces, largely from the Army National Guard.

In summary, the dedicated men and women of the United States European Command remain steadfast in their commitment to our nation and to our mission.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. I look forward to answering the committee's questions. Thank you.

REP. SKELTON: Thank you very much. Admiral.

ADM. STAVRIDIS: Chairman Skelton, Ranking Member, all the members of the committee, thank you very much for taking the time to come and listen, to ask us questions, and to have this dialogue and discussion.

I have to echo John Craddock. I feel very blessed to be here with John Craddock and Kip Ward, two fine professionals. In fact, I feel very safe, as a Navy guy, to have two Army four-stars on either side of me.

I'm often told that, "Admiral, what you're doing is important because this part of the world is America's backyard." I don't think that's quite the right expression. It's not our backyard. It's a home that we share together here in the Americas.

And so, in this vibrant and diverse part of the world, where $1.2 trillion of U.S. trade and economy goes, where there are many challenges, I think it's important that we focus as a nation and that I, at SOUTHCOM, focus as your senior military commander in the region on an area of the world that I believe will be of increasing importance as days go by.

There are enormous challenges, starting with poverty, but also drugs and illegal trafficking, which the chairman alluded to. Terrorism; We see both narco-terrorism on the part of the FARC in Colombia as well as nascent -- the beginnings of Islamic radical terrorism. We see violence and crime. Cuba continues as a problem in that it is the last remaining dictatorship in the Americas. All -- every nation in this region is a democracy, save one, and that is Cuba.

Haiti continues to be a nation that is trying to overcome extreme challenges of poverty. And today a United Nations force is there, and I hope to talk about some of their successes.

And lastly, we're all aware of the regional tensions that have riven this region over recent years, most recently, as the chairman alluded to, tensions between Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela. Thankfully those appear to be diminished, but I'm happy to talk about them today.

At SOUTHCOM, we approach our military-to-military role in ways that try and address some of these unique challenges in this region, responding to natural disasters, working on the counternarcotics problem, but in an interagency way with the DEA, with the Coast Guard, with other interagency partners. We conduct large exercises, like Panamax, which focus on defending the important Panama Canal from potential terrorist attack. That's an exercise with 20 partners. It's in every sense an international and an interagency sort of event.

We're also very focused on human rights, and we have a large human rights division that works with partners throughout the region to try and inculcate good practices, and we work very hard at that.

Finally, we focus at SOUTHCOM on issues of language and culture, trying to understand the region so we can better interact with our partners. So we're doing, I think, a reasonable job for you. I'd like to talk about that today and take your questions. Again, I thank this committee for its support to SOUTHCOM, to the Department of Defense, and above all to the men and women who serve our nation at sea, ashore and in the air.

Thank you very much.

REP. SKELTON: Admiral, thank you very much.

General Ward, welcome.

GEN. WARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Representative Hunter, and distinguished members of the committee. It is an honor, as commander of United States Africa Command, to present to Congress our first posture statement, and also to be here with my teammates to the right, Admiral Jim Stavridis and General John Craddock, who I am personally thankful for their personal commitment to my efforts in standing up this command, and I thank both to you.

Also, as was pointed out by General Craddock, the importance of our enlisted force, I have with me my senior enlisted leader, Command Sergeant Major Mark Ripka. And all the things -- Mark, could you stand up? All of the things that General Craddock said about General -- I'm sorry, Major Farley certainly apply here, and as importantly with what we want to do, providing our partner nations -- help increase their capacity, the role of the noncommissioned officer in that endeavor is essential. Command Sergeant Major Ripka is an excellent example as well as leader in helping us promote those interests that we have as we deal with out partner nations. Thank you, Sergeant Major.

(Applause.)

The creation of this command signals a new focus on United States strategic interests for Africa and its island nations. Working with our African partners, interagency friends and others, we are building a new organization that will benefit the citizens of the United States and the peoples of Africa, and provide a model that advances interagency cooperation in conducting security assistance. We look forward to pioneering the Department of Defense's vision for a joint interagency command.

Africa Command will optimize the military's contribution to achieving U.S. national security objectives in Africa. We will move forward in a deliberate and sustained way, committed to partnering with the people and nations of Africa to help create a secure and encouraging future. Our goals for African security, as well as the work that this command will oversee, are a continuance of established United States activities. This will not preclude some new ideas of our own to add value to existing programs, but sets the stage for continuous improvement. The United States has provided security assistance through a variety of programs to build capacity in African militaries and their security organizations.

In my face-to-face meetings, African military and political leaders have made it clear that they want these programs to continue. We will sustain our current efforts, and through Africa Command, we will improve military programs through our strategy of active security. We will orient our programs on stability in order to prevent conflict. We will seek to enhance capacity building and those efforts that we carry out with African militaries and their standby forces. Our intent is to enable them to provide for their own security. Active security includes sustained support to our U.S. interagency partners, such as the State Department's African Contingency Operations Training and Assistance -- the ACOTA program -- which has helped prepare thousands of African military personnel for international peacekeeping operations. ACOTA-trained forces participate in United Nations and African Union peacekeeping missions in Somalia, Darfur and other areas of conflict. U.S. Army and Marine Corps personnel conduct military-to-military training and professional development at the individual and unit level.

Active security includes U.S. Air Force assistance in terms of airlift and logistic support to African peacekeepers and support to programs to assist in air domain safety and awareness. We also provide special operations counterterrorism training teams to strengthen national capabilities and enhance multinational cooperation. Our forces also support humanitarian efforts, where U.S. military programs compliment the U.S. Agency for International Development. We have conducted de-mining in former conflict areas, as well as promoted HIV/AIDS relief, awareness programs in African militaries. Additionally, the U.S. Navy's Africa Partnership Station and U.S. Coast Guard activities are helping African nations increase their maritime safety and security through training activities and programs that enhance maritime awareness.

It is my honor to serve with our uniformed men and women as well as our interagency partners who are making this new command a reality. Again, thank you for your support, and I, too, look forward to taking your questions.

REP. SKELTON: General, thank you.

Before I ask there to be any questions, Mr. Saxton has a comment.

REP. JIM SAXTON (R-NJ): Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. It's my pleasure and, in fact, an honor to welcome a new member to the committee, Mr. Rob Wittman. Rob is here with us this morning, sitting in the front row. Rob is from Montross, Virginia. He is taking the place of our great friend, the late Jo Ann Davis, in the 1st Congressional District of Virginia. He will be serving on the Seapower and Readiness Subcommittees. Rob's wife is Kathryn and he has two children, a son named Josh and a daughter named Devon (Sp?).

So welcome aboard. (Applause.)

REP. SKELTON: Thank you. I'll just ask one quick question and save my questions for later.

General Ward, what is the genesis of your command? Who came up with it? Would you tell us about it, since you're brand new?

GEN. WARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The idea of an Africa Command is not a new idea. It has been talked about for many years within the Department of Defense as a way of looking at the continent of Africa as Africans look at Africa. About two years ago, this discussion was continuing, and I was not a part of it, but as I understand it, Chairman, the secretary of defense made a recommendation to the president that as we look at how we conduct our business in providing military assistance to the continent of Africa and recognizing the growing strategic importance of the continent to focus our efforts in a more effective way in working with the various partners who are responsible for doing the work that they do on behalf of our nation on the continent, an organizational construct within the Department of Defense that recognizes the totality of Africa as Africans see it was in our best interest insofar as how we focus the delivery of our security assistance programs and how we as the Department of Defense look at the continent of Africa.

That recommendation was made to the president December of '06, and in early '07 President Bush signed the directive announcing the stand-up of United States Africa Command with a initial operational capability effective 1 October '07, with a full operational capability to occur in October of this calendar year.

REP. SKELTON: General, thank you very much.

Mr. Saxton.

REP. SAXTON: General Craddock, Let me just turn to a subject that you and I have talked about before. In the coming weeks, the United States, as I said in my opening statement, will deploy over 3,000 men and women to Afghanistan. There appears to some to be ambiguity about the command of these additional forces. From your perspective, will these Marines fall under NATO or ISAF or CENTCOM operational control? And also, what will the missions of these -- what will their missions be and under what rules of engagement will these forces operate, ISAF's or those of the United States?

GEN. CRADDOCK: Thank you, Congressman.

With regard to the question of the Marines, 3,200, of which 1,000 will be under U.S. command -- Central Command -- for training purposes. The remainder -- 2,200 -- will be assigned via transfer of authority to ISAF. They will be under the operational control of the commander of ISAF, General McNeil. And he has the authority, then, to lead them under his command or either provide them to regional commanders under an operational control assignment or a tactical assignment.

I have talked to COMISAF. He said that will depend upon the mission and the task that those Marines are given. The missions will be largely in Regional Command South. They can expect to be out and about in patrols and come in contact with the opposition militant forces -- the insurgents -- and they will be in a combat role. They will operate under NATO rules of engagement, and I specifically got that authority for the ISAF commitment from the secretary of defense. I asked him, Will they be sent under ISAF or OEF? And he said they will come under ISAF -- transfer of authority to ISAF, the term we use in NATO -- and they will work for COMISAF.

With regard to the question you asked earlier -- from Ranking Member Hunter, does the command and control laydown make sense? This is one of these, I think unique situations that it briefs terribly, but in reality on the ground, it works well. It's hard to explain, but because over several years and application and because this largely a combat situation and lives are at risk, commanders have been able to work through processes and agreements to do so. The fact that COMISAF is a U.S. commander also is, I think, a leveling factor in the command and control apparatus.

So at this time -- and this is my judgment between NATO, ISAF, the United States coalition Operation Enduring Freedom -- it is functional. I have asked COMISAF that. He's said it's working fine with him, and he sees no reason at this time to make a change.

REP. SAXTON: Thank you.

Let me just ask you another -- the other NATO question with regard to the level of commitment of our NATO allies relative to NATO's minimum military requirement and the seeming failure of roughly half the 26 allies to meet that requirement.

GEN. CRADDOCK: Thank you.

There's two points here, I think. First of all is the commitment in Afghanistan. NATO gave Allied Command Operations -- my headquarters and all my subordinate headquarters -- a task. We told them what we needed in terms of the numbers of organizations -- military capability to do that. And the NATO nations have yet to provide that full capability. We are still short of maneuver units. We are short of functional capability -- what we call key enablers -- rotary wing aviation; heavy medium-lift helicopters; we're short intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability.
So we are continually -- I guess I would use the term "tin cupping" our nations back again and again to try to get a political commitment to provide that capability. It exists in the alliance. When I talk to my counterparts, they acknowledge it. There is a -- an understanding that they could provide, but the issues are political in nature.

Now the second part -- the level of commitment to the NATO nations to their defense establishments. NATO has set a benchmark of 2 percent of GDP against the defense sector as an objective. It's my understanding today, based on my accounting and there's a little bit -- nations have a different perspective. But the way we are looking at it, of the 26 NATO nations, seven have met the 2 percent benchmark. The trends for those seven are not positive. Some of those seven, we find the commitment -- the percent going down. And then of the 19 remaining, we find a mixed bag. But I would say, overall, we do not see a general trend of increasing of the commitment to the security sector to get to the 2 percent across the board.

REP. SAXTON: And I guess that's -- I guess that would be fairly troubling to someone in your position. Is there an effort through your interaction with the commanders and the political structures in the 26 countries to try to rectify the situation?

GEN. CRADDOCK: Indeed, there is at various levels. I interface routinely with chiefs of defense, encourage them -- one, to contribute more capability to Afghanistan and ISAF; secondly, to work with their political leaders to increase the level of budget authority given to the defense sector. I have taken this argument, if you will -- this dilemma to the defense ministers repeatedly in ministerials and also to the foreign ministers.

I have appeared before the North Atlantic Council several times with the same appeal. They need to continue to increase the budget share -- the GDP share so that several things can happen. One, they can support operations which are costly; two, they can then support transformation of their forces to 21st century expeditionary deployable, capable forces.

REP. SAXTON: Thank you.

Let me just ask General Ward -- General Ward, you've got a unique set of challenges, I'm sure, in your new job. And I'm just wondering if you could just kind of tick off the top three challenges that you have for us. You know, what makes your job particularly difficult? And if you like, tell us about some of the successes that you've had so far.

GEN. WARD: Thank you, Congressman.

As you know, the command is just standing up. And so, clearly, the challenge of forming a brand-new organization is there. The -- I attribute success on any given week when I make a phone call and the same number that I use to contact one of my staff officers is still in effect, or I walk down the hallway and the office that I think someone is in, theyyyyyyyyyÃ?re still in that same office over a week's period of time.

We are building a team. We are bringing together a diverse mix and civilian and military personnel that will come together and cause us to be more effective and comprehensive as we plan the activities that we will conduct in helping our nations who we partner with on the continent of Africa and their supporting organizations be more capable of providing for their security. As we do that, we are dealing with nations who are in varying stages of democracy. Their maturity levels are at varying stages. And so therefore, we have to do it very cognizant of the fact that one size does not fit all. We have to be very understanding of our partners -- cultural appreciation, understanding of historical relationships -- so that we deliver a program that in fact does what they want to do -- what we want to in our combined interest of building capacity in ways that provide for long-term stability on the continent of Africa.

This is a long-term endeavor. I'm not known as being a very patient individual, but I know I have to be because this is something that will be realized, quite frankly, not in days and weeks but over time.

So as we build this command, sir, causing the expectations to be metered or checked in a way that one keeps the enthusiasm for what we want to do present, but at the same time recognizing the realities of the situation so that we, in fact, do bring value-added and do no harm to a very important part of the world through programs that mean a lot for our own internal stability as well as our national security, and as importantly for the security of the African continent. So working through that, putting programs in place, putting campaign plans, if you will, in place that are well understood so that our intent is better understood, so that it is not misrepresented. So we have a challenge in our strategic communications. We're working that aspect of it so we don't confuse our true intent and when we do that, it does in fact meet with positive results.

The challenge for that is that it's a time-consuming endeavor as well, and it's one that we must repeat over and over again. And so it is those sorts of things that are doing that we have to be focused, we have to remain dedicated as we do them. The aspect of this entire endeavor, Congressman, is that -- I will tell you that remains very encouraging for me as I travel around the continent and my senior staff -- my two deputies, one of whom is a senior member of the Department of State, the minister counselor -- my deputy for Civil- Military Affairs -- we receive good support for our efforts of helping them be more capable of providing for their own security. They appreciate that attention and that focus, and the recognition that this command illustrates of their importance is something that is well received.

REP. SAXTON: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I have some questions about SOUTHCOM which I will hold for a little bit later to give some other people a chance here.

REP. SKELTON: Thank you. We will have a second round.

Mr. Ortiz.

REP. SOLOMON P. ORTIZ (D-TX): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Admiral Stavridis, good to see you, sir.

ADM. STAVRIDIS: Sir.

REP. ORTIZ: We welcome out witnesses today.

ADM. STAVRIDIS: Thank you.

REP. ORTIZ: I was just wondering if you can -- or if you have any concerns about any increased presence of Islamic radicalism in the Southern Command region. And what is your assessment on any current terrorist training activity that might be being conducted in the region or funded through illegal drug trafficking? And does the relationship with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has developed with Iran concern -- the other day, we had the Commandant of the Marine Corps and I asked him about what was happening then -- breaking relations with Colombia.

Another question is, we don't know why type of equipment he has bought unless maybe we do have the intelligence. I know he's been buying equipment from many, many places. So maybe -- I know I put a lot of questions there, but maybe you can at least touch on some of them, Admiral.

ADM. STAVRIDIS: I certainly can, sir.

Let me start with terrorism in the region. And I think it's important to recognize there are sort of two levels or two forms of terrorism in this part of the world. There is narcoterrorism, which we think of mostly clearly associated with the FARC in Colombia and the Sendero Luminoso -- the Shining Path in Peru. These are groups that have Marxist-Leninist views and are using narcotics and kidnapping as a means of raising funds. So they're using terrorist methods for political upheaval that they're attempting to direct against democratically-elected governments.

So that's narcoterrorism, and that is a force that must be contended with. And I'm very encouraged by how our friends in Colombia are responding to the FARC, who is -- has been reduced from a high of about 18,000 members down to somewhere around 8 or 9,000.

So that's narcoterrorism. It's a constant struggle and it's one that is going fairly well in Colombia.

Islamic radical terrorism is a much less immediate force in the region, but it has the potential to become of greater concern to us. At the moment, I would say at, an unclassified level, it is largely centered in proselytizing, recruiting, money laundering. It is hooked somewhat into the narcotics trade and, above all, it is a means of generation of revenue, largely for the Hezbollah Islamic radical organization. Monies are garnered here in Latin America and go back to Hezbollah. So that's of concern. Iran, as we know, is a state sponsor of terrorism, has links to Hezbollah, and so I am concerned about linkages between the Iranian state and nascent Islamic radical terrorism in this region.

Now, sir, you asked also about the issues in Venezuela, Ecuador, and Colombia. As I think most of us know, about two weeks ago there was a flare-up there involving a border incursion by the Colombian military and an attack against a FARC leader. Diplomatic relations were broken or about to be broken among several of those states. There was some movement of troops toward borders. I'm happy to report that the leaders in the region -- and this an important and a positive thing -- that the leaders in the region have settled that amongst themselves at a summit that was convened in the Dominican Republic last week. In addition to the good work by the leaders of the states involved, there were also the good offices -- President Lula of Brazil, President Bachelet of Chile, and other regional important actors. So the region came together to solve that problem, and that's very encouraging.

Now finally, sir, you asked about the equipment that the Venezuelans are obtaining, the military equipment. And I will tell you, as I did last year, I am concerned about it. It seems like a high level of weapons purchases. Let me give you some examples: 25 high-performance aircraft, 50 new attack helicopters, over 100,000 AK- 103 very advanced automatic rifles, military transports, diesel submarines of very advanced technology. I personally have difficulty understanding why that level of weapons would be needed by the Venezuelan state because, as we've just seen, this is a region that is not prone to going to war, but has the capacity to solve, peacefully, disputes.
So I think I've tripped along through a whole series of questions there, but hopefully I got to where you wanted to go, sir.

REP. ORTIZ: You answered them well, but before my times runs out, General Ward, we are happy to be in Africa, but sometimes our country goes to places where maybe we're imposing or maybe they don't want us to be there. But I think that in your opening statement you mentioned that we were welcome there, that you talked to the political leaders in the community. Are we going to be welcome there --

The first question I must ask is, Do they want us there?

GEN. WARD: Thank you, Congressman. They want what we can offer them in assistance as they work to build their capacity. How we do that is very important, and your point is one that we pay strict attention to.

The notion of being there insofar as how we deliver security assistance, yes, sir, they do want us there. They want us there to assist them as they help increase their own capacity, as they be more proficient, as they cause their transforming militaries to be militaries that are respectful of human rights, that are responsive to elected civil authorities, that also abide by the rule of law. Our example, our relationship with them helps them move in that direction.

The presence issue, with respect to where we go and how we go, is an issue that is a bit more complicated. And the deliberateness of anything that we do is taken with that in mind. And so at this point in time, there are no intentions from the standpoint of rushing to the continent in the traditional form of establishing a headquarters or bases or things of that sort.

As we continue to deliver programs, as these programs are desired by the Africans, as these programs are in keeping with our foreign policy objectives, our national security objectives, and if it is determined that a presence will be something that will be more supportive of that, then that would be pursued when those conditions are there with our African partners, with obviously our government here, and in full transparency of the fact that what we do is something that all would want to occur.

REP. ORTIZ: Thank you so much. My time just ran out.

REP. SKELTON: Thank the gentleman.

John McHugh.

REP. JOHN MCHUGH (R-NY): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, you were all very gracious to each other in your opening comments, appropriately so. I should tell you we are all very fortunate to have three such distinguished gentlemen in service to this nation, and we thank you all for that.
General Craddock, you talked in your -- you talked -- you wrote in your written statement about the trans-Sahara counterterrorism partnership. Can you tell us a little bit more about that? And obviously terrorism is a concern we all have. We just heard Admiral Stavridis talk about SOUTHCOM and the dangers that exist there. But as we look across the globe, certainly up in the Maghreb and throughout the Horn, et cetera, is a very troubling spot. And I'd be interested in exactly how the partnership is working and how, if at all, you are working with General Ward to kind of bring that big continent together in that initiative.

GEN. CRADDOCK: Thank you, Congressman. The trans-Sahara counterterrorism program is a program originally initiated with Department of State and Department of Defense, so there's two components to this.

The overarching program is the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism program, and that's a State lead, and that's bringing many of the civil aspects of building institutions, enhancing infrastructure to that area. And then the other side of that is Operation Enduring Freedom Trans-Sahara, the DOD side, where we are working with the nations there in the Maghreb area to build their capabilities, security capabilities and capacities for better control and self- defense in their own interest.

I would tell you that the OEF-TS side of that is fully funded. My assessment is it is working well. We have used the SOCEUR -- the Special Operations Command of Europe -- personnel through the JCETs (Joint Combined Exchange Training) over the last couple of years to great extent and great advantage, and we are working very well with our partner-nation militaries there to enhance their capability.

I would tell you that the Trans Sahara Counterterrorism program is working, but has not been funded to that same level that the OEF- TS. So we're hoping to be able to get that up and move that along a little faster.

The threat, as you know, I'm sure, is the affiliation now of Islamic terrorists in that region with al Qaeda. And that the al Qaeda AQIM -- al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb -- now has become, if you will, a franchise. We are seeing linkages and we are seeing financial and logistics support and training support also. It is becoming bolder in terms of its attacks and increasingly a greater threat to the nations of that region.

Now, at this time, the OEF-TS, Trans Sahara, the DOD part of the effort there, is still in the hands of European Command, because AFRICOM has not stood up to the extent that we can transfer that function. We are in the process, very complex, but an amazing effort by two staffs -- and particularly the AFRICOM transition team -- to identify all the missions, activities, programs, operations, and exercises. And it's an enormous undertaking. And then time-line a transfer of that authority and responsibility to AFRICOM. So the OEF-TS has yet to transfer. We are working to ensure that Kip Ward's folks are on board, trained, and then ready to transfer that over. So we'll have it, I think, for the next several months -- obviously, the objective, by the end of the fiscal year.

But I am, again, encouraged with the military-to-military effort that is ongoing. We are working with our State Department colleagues to enhance the capability of the Trans Sahara program from their aspect.

REP. MCHUGH: Great. We'll look forward to that -- to Kip Ward getting both feet, both hands, as I know he can do, in that as well.

Let me ask you, I'm going to give you your choice, because we have very short time here. You also mentioned in that regard your concerns about some of the -- lack of interoperability of foreign military sales, and also the concerns you have with MILSAT (sp) architecture. Pick one of those and tell us what the problems are.

GEN. CRADDOCK: Let me deal with the interoperability on FMF (Foreign Military Financing). I think what we have to do is have a -- and it's not just, I don't' think, EUCOM or AFRICOM. We have to have a more coherent approach to our capabilities, if you will, of working with nations, determining what it is they think they need, and then understanding what it is we want them to achieve -- what capabilities are needed in today's world -- and then working to, with the security cooperation folks in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, to provide coherent packages so that we apply the same equipment, if you will, capabilities, particularly in some of these high-tech electronics, to all the nations, as opposed to randomly selecting certain types for each nation and then they never work together when we need them. And we just haven't done a good job, and we've got to get a more coherent approach.

REP. SKELTON: I thank the gentleman.

Dr. Snyder.

REP. VIC SNYDER (D-TX): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to ask how information flows and what your all's roles are. Admiral Fallon was here on March 5th testifying as the combatant commander for Central Command. And by the way, I consider the five of you geographic combatant commanders just the pinnacle of what is good about America. We greatly value your service and your expertise. And you're a combination of soldier, diplomat, and wise people, and we appreciate you.

Admiral Fallon, in response somewhat to Ms. Sanchez's question and Mr. Thornberry's, I believe, at some point said that he needed 2,000 additional troops, primarily trainers, in Afghanistan. Now, he didn't talk about NATO troops. He wasn't -- he was talking about he needed 2,000 more U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and he didn't' mince any words about it.

The following day we had the commandant of the Marine Corps and I asked him if he could provide the 2,000 troops and he said no, not without changing the dwell-time issues and the whole issue of the frequency of deployments.

On March 12th, the PACCOM was here, Admiral Keating, and I asked him -- he had expressed some reservations in the press about he was down 30,000 troops overall. And I asked him what if somebody asked him for 2,000 more troops now, and he said he could provide them. He repeated and emphasized he had 280,000 troops and he had the ability of coming up with 2,000 troops.

So my question is, we're a nation at war. It is in two places, one of them being Afghanistan. There is no controversy, I don't think, in the minds of the American people or the Congress, about Afghanistan. We have the combatant commander, Admiral Fallon, testifying publicly he needs 2,000 more troops. We have another one of your colleagues, Admiral Keating, testifying that he can provide the 2,000 troops. What am I missing here? Why is that -- given the incredible respect that we all have for you, and I think the Pentagon and the military has for you, why -- where's the disconnect, the flow of information?

GEN. CRADDOCK: Let me start, if I could, Congressman. I'm surprised also. Look, if I were asked, if you were asking me could I provide the 2,000 out of European Command, the answer is no, because my forces are in the global force pool. My forces are rotating into Iraq and into Afghanistan, and my forces are managed by the Joint Staff and they are available for assignments as required.

So in our global --

REP. SNYDER: So you are what we call a force receiver, not a force provider.

GEN. CRADDOCK: I am a force provider to OIF and OEF, from my assigned forces in European Command. I do not receive forces unless I go back with a request for forces for a specific purpose and ask for them.

REP. SNYDER: Right.

ADM. STAVRIDIS: I think I'll probably be in the same position as General Ward, but in my personal situation, sir, first of all we have only at any given time less than 4,000 troops deployed throughout this region of the world. I'm not a heavy demand in any sense. I have no assigned troops. I simply go to the pool that General Craddock's talking about. So my needs are met. I don't have any excess.

And in terms of the specific question you have about Admiral Fallon and his -- and Admiral Keating, I'm sorry; I just can't address that. I'm a satisfied user of what I think is a sensible system.

REP. SNYDER: And I assume, General Ward, you're in that same --

GEN. WARD: That's correct, Congressman.

REP. SNYDER: You understand our confusion.

ADM. STAVRIDIS: I do.

REP. SNYDER: I mean, we want to win these wars. Regardless of people's views about how we got into Iraq, we want the best outcome we can have, and we have somebody at your level saying I need 2,000 troops. It is concerning; it is very, very concerning.
I wanted to ask the same question I asked Admiral Keating about Admiral Fallon, which is because of my great respect for you all and the information that you provide us, both privately and in these public settings, while you all can be replaced tomorrow, there is always concern created when something happens like what has gone on the last week with Admiral Fallon.

My question is do we have to have any reservations that the wrong signal is going to be sent to the three of you that the information that you're going to provide us, both publicly and privately, is somehow going to be constrained by what has occurred in the last few days with Admiral Fallon's resignation?

GEN. CRADDOCK: Congressman, when I took this job, as I have previous assignments, I will be forthright and answer your questions without any hesitation. I have no reservation or concern that -- with that regard.

So in terms of what's happened here recently, today I know what I read in the papers, and that's probably not enough, but I will continue to respond as I always have, to the best of my ability, to answer the questions where they lie.

ADM. STAVRIDIS: As I think we say on Capitol Hill, I want to associate myself with General Craddock's remarks. I agree completely. The essence of all these jobs is honesty and integrity, and I will continue to answer all questions put to me honestly and with integrity.

GEN. WARD: Representative, that's been my way of doing business for 36-plus years, and that will not change.

REP. SNYDER: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. SKELTON: Thank you.

The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Bartlett.

REP. ROSCOE BARTLETT (R-MD): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for your service to our country.

There's an old Indian saying that you shouldn't criticize a person until you've walked a day in their moccasins. We are unsympathetic when Russia complains about the enlargement of NATO into countries that were once a part of the Soviet Union, and when they complain about the installation of military facilities in those countries.

General Craddock, I'd like you to imagine for a moment that we had lost the Cold War. NATO is gone, but the Warsaw Pact is alive and growing. And from time to time, new countries are added to the Warsaw Pact. This time, the countries that are being added to the Warsaw Pact are Mexico and Canada. How do you think you would feel, sir, in that situation?

GEN. CRADDOCK: As a citizen in a democracy, I would be concerned.

REP. BARTLETT: See, I have some trouble understanding how it is in our long-term national security interests to antagonize Russia by extending NATO -- which was set up specifically to counter the Warsaw Pact -- by enlarging NATO into countries that are directly on their border and then putting military facilities there.

I'm all for a European good will society. I just think that naming it NATO is inherently threatening to Russia. I know this is primarily a State Department issue, but the State Department is not sitting in the witness chairs, and I know that our military has a role to play in this, because we make recommendations relative to where our military ought to be placed and where military facilities ought to be placed.

And I remember that Indian observation that you shouldn't criticize a person until you've walked a day in his moccasins, and when I put myself in the position of Russia, imagining that NATO is gone, the Warsaw Pact is enlarging, and the next two member nations joining it would be Canada and Mexico. I really don't need a response, sir. I just wanted to get this on the record. It's just one member's observation, trying to sit in another person's seat and see how they see the world from that position.
Thank you all again very, very much for your service.

REP. SKELTON: Ms. Sanchez, please.

REP. LORETTA SANCHEZ (D-CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, once again, for being before us.

I have a couple of questions. I think the majority of my other questions with respect to the troops in Afghanistan and the information we had from Admiral Fallon and others I think was taken up by Mr. Snyder, so I appreciate you following up on that, Mr. Snyder.
I have a question for Admiral Stavridis.

In your written testimony, you articulate that your command facilitates military and defense exchanges, numerous Defense seminars and mobile training teams throughout the region. And you go on to say that training at the security institutions continues to be very popular and beneficial to the partners in the region, and access to funded billets as a U.S. school significantly diminishes the draw of extra hemispheric military influence.
So I would like to ask you about a specific security institution, since I didn't see it mentioned in your 47 pages of written testimony. As you know, each year, the House of Representatives votes on whether to cut funding for the Western Hemisphere Institutes for Security Cooperation, or WHINSEC. And as you know, I am one of the -- I am on the Board of Visitors of that institution for this committee -- it's at Fort Benning (Georgia). And last year, the House had a very close vote on whether to eliminate the funding for WHINSEC, a vote of 203 to 214.

So, Admiral, is WHENSEC a priority for your command? And if so, how do you rank its importance within the other priorities of your posture statement?

ADM. STAVRIDIS: WHENSEC is our premier opportunity for high- volume, high quality training for military officers and senior enlisted from the entirety of Latin America. And it's important to say, it's not just the students, Ma'am, there are also 200 on the faculty, including representatives from 18 different countries on the faculty -- as you know from your time on the Board of Visitors -- about 1,000 students at any given time. So the throughput is very high. It represents about 60 percent of our total available methodology for bringing our military partners from throughout Latin America, the Caribbean and Central America.

I want to hit a bell that's very important. And that, again, as you know from being on the -- on the Board of Visitors -- absolutely central to this is the human rights curriculum there, and that's about 35 percent of the total curriculum that any given student receives. And to have that centralized is very, very important and powerful for us.
So I would put WHENSEC very near the top, if not the top, of this particular segment of our outreach and ability to get into the region. And I continue to be very supportive of it. I should also mention, if I could, Ma'am, that Mexico is not formally part of SOUTHCOM, that's part of NORTHCOM, but I've had many conversations with General Renuart, my opposite number at NORTHCOM, and he is equally strong a supporter of WHENSEC as I am.

REP. SANCHEZ: Right. And Admiral, how does having graduates of WHENSEC -- I don't know how many they would number at this point, but we've had the school for a long time now --

ADM. STAVRIDIS: Thousands.

REP. SANCHEZ: -- as you know, former School of the Americas. We had some problems with that. We changed it over.

ADM. STAVRIDIS: Right.

REP. SANCHEZ: How does that affect your cooperative posture with respect to your counterpart or people under you who deal with these different countries as we try to figure out what the security situation should be for the Western Hemisphere.

ADM. STAVRIDIS: Well, it's a -- as you can imagine, it's just a powerful human linkage. If we think about how we in the United States try and send our message into the world, there are a lot of ways to do that. You can do it with film, you can do it with television, you can do it with radio, you can do it with publications. But human contact trumps all other forms in the transfer of information. So that human- to-human dimension that occurs when 1,000 students a year come live in a beautiful place like Georgia and are welcomed into the homes of the families who are sponsoring them, it creates an absolutely indelible bond that then pays off in the sense that if you think what we're doing in the U.S. military is right, generally -- and we sure make our mistakes -- but generally you think what we're doing is right, I think you should feel good that we are attempting to transfer some of that value system into our partners and neighbors.
And also, I have to say we learn a lot from them. We learn an enormous amount about the region from having students from 18, 20, 25 countries come through that course. We learn about their culture, their language, their approach, what they value, what they don't value. So that exchange becomes very powerful as you get into a situation where, for example, there are regional tensions, and yet there are students, former students, from each of the countries who have served, who know each other, who know people in the United States. It allows us to help diffuse tension, as simply one example of the payout of WHENSEC.

REP. SANCHEZ: Thank you, Admiral.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. SKELTON: I appreciate the gentlelady's inquiry on that school. Admiral, as you know, there have been in years and years past, complaints about graduates from that school or its predecessor. To your knowledge, have there been any problems or complaints or such human rights violations of graduates in recent years?

ADM. STAVRIDIS: No sir. And I would like to add that, first of all, we -- it is utterly transparent. We are happy to have any member of Congress, any reporter come anytime. And we also have an Open House Day, when any member of the public can come. Last year, we had 1,000 people come, including some people who disagreed with the former school, the old School of the Americas. And we simply are trying to show that this is not the School of the Americas. This is a new institution that is absolutely centered on human rights and the exchange of information with members of Congress such as Congresswoman Sanchez, Senator Levin and others who are on the Board of Visitors to help make sure it fulfills the correct ambitions that we all have for it.

REP. SKELTON: Thank you, Admiral.

Mr. Hayes.

REP. ROBIN HAYES (R-NC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And gentlemen, again, let me echo my thanks to all of you and the men and women who serve under your command.
General Ward, in your command, I know Special Forces will play a very important role in terms of helping with training, indirect action and other supporting activity. Would you comment for the committee on how that is working out and just talk about the positive aspects of our participation there.

GEN. WARD: Thank you, Congressman.

As General Craddock pointed out, at the current time, the activities on the continent are still being conducted under the auspices of U.S. European Command, and General Craddock's Special Operations Command Europe still is in charge of those activities, where Special Operations forces are doing work in Africa.

U.S. Africa Command does envision a theater Special Operations Command. That command is being formed now, as is my headquarters, to be doing the -- similar work that's being done by SOCEUR on the continent. Those activities include military-to-military training activities, basic unit tactics techniques and procedures and conducting security operations that helps those nations provide for their own internal defense as well as the capability and capacity to participate in like-minded activities that help counter the terrorist threat that exists in their regions.

And so there will be a theater Special Operations Command as a part of U.S. Africa Command that will have the missions for providing for any extremist response, should that be required, as is currently the case through SOCEUR. And this command, this theater Special Operations Command will exist with capabilities similar to the capabilities that exist in any geographic combatant headquarters as it pertains to their Special Operations Command and its capabilities.

REP. HAYES: Thanks for those comments. I think we're all appreciative of the role that they play there. And given the emerging status of Africa as it relates to oil and other resources, again, they're even more important.

General Craddock, would you like to comment as the general in charge at the moment as well?

GEN. CRADDOCK: Well I -- thank you, Congressman. I can only endorse what General Ward said and what you just said -- they are very important because they are out and about in these JCETs, these exchange training activities.

Let me give you an example. Recently, there was some instability in Chad, and it was very fast-paced and -- actually, was a bit unanticipated. Because we had JCETs in the region training counterparts, we were able to quickly put them in the right position with some fixed-wing lift capability, and to assist the ambassador with a communications capability, with the opportunity, then, to provide him a command-and-control capacity that he would not have had, and to quickly work the ordered departure that was implemented by the State Department for the embassy there.

Now, that happens because we've got those forces, those A-Teams and those JCETs, engaged in the theater with small capability, but, again, it's a little bit in a large theater that goes a long way. So I will tell you that SOCEUR, Special Operations Command Europe, is extraordinarily high-tempo engagement in Africa that will transition to SOCAF at the appropriate time.

REP. HAYES: Thank you for those comments. I think it's important for the public to know how much of a role those forces -- and all our forces are special, make no mistake about that -- but in prevention of conflicts and other things.

General Craddock, drug-flow from South America through Africa to Europe. What's AFRICOM -- and I'll pass it on to you too, General Ward -- mission in that regard? We know that's happening as well.

GEN. CRADDOCK: At this time, with regard to EUCOM, since we still have that mission in the -- we're watching closely in West Africa -- and the lines of communication both for smuggling of drugs and, actually, persons and arms also, through West Africa up through the North Africa, Maghreb and into the southern part of Europe, there's great concern that that is also a potential foreign fighter flow than through that area and onward movement towards the Middle East. There's concern in Europe also.
So we -- I won't say we partner, but we coordinate closely with SOUTHCOM. There's a new counterdrug office organization set up in Spain, I believe --

ADM. STAVRIDIS: It's in Lisbon -- Portugal, sir.

GEN. CRADDOCK: -- Portugal that we are monitoring -- SOUTHCOM is working closely with so we can enhance the picture that we have that's ongoing, increase the intelligence gathering means in that region, and then be able to have a common operating picture across the COCOMs.

Now, when AFRICOM comes onboard, again, we transition that to them, but we're seeing more and more great concern and sensitivity of the European nations, and they are participating in this to a greater extent. And that's a good thing.

REP. HAYES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. SKELTON: Thank you. Ms. Davis.

We have -- it appears, I'm told, two votes. The -- one is the Lee amendment and the other is a quorum call for the purposes of swearing in a new member.

Ms. Davis.

REP. SUSAN DAVIS (D-CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you to all of you for your long-standing service to our country. It's been exceptional. And we appreciate it.

I wonder if you could turn specifically, General Craddock, to talking about the 1207 authority and the use of funds from the DOD to the non-stabilization -- or stabilization efforts but non-military efforts through the State Department.
Have you been able to use that authority and have -- I guess, has the response been what you would expect? I know that this is relatively new, but we're going to be looking at that authority again.

GEN. CRADDOCK: Thank you, Congresswoman. I appreciate that.

The 1206, 1207 and 1208 authorities, indeed, are relatively new, but they have been, in this short time, in my judgment, very powerful. The Title 22 funding through the Department of State into regions for the purposes, then, of foreign military financing and IMET, is all very helpful, but here's another opportunity with authority from the State Department, funding from the Department of Defense, to be able to provide another avenue for building partner nation capability and capacity in counterterrorism activities.
And we're finding throughout Africa, and I think also in Eastern Europe -- the Caucasus, if you will -- this is helpful because these terrorist organizations are embedding themselves into criminal organizations and using centuries-old lines of smuggling, if you will, to move back and forth, not only persons but weapons, arms and other contraband that they use, obviously, to gain financial advantage.

So this authority provides us, the 1207 particularly, some infrastructure capability to assist partner nations to come onboard and increase their capacities to deal with this. So --

REP. DAVIS: When do you think is a fair time to assess the extent to which they've been able to really capitalize on that -- to be able to bring those individuals forward?

GEN. CRADDOCK: Yeah. Well, I don't think it's right now. I think it's -- first of all, the 1206, we got first and we're using it now to greater advantage. The 1207 has come onboard. Quite frankly, in this huge system we have, it takes awhile to understand what we can do to work through the legal framework of what the -- the limits of the authority is and then apply it. We have to get it out to our offices of Defense Cooperation.
I think it'll take a couple, three years to really see the value.

REP. DAVIS: Is there anything that we can do to be more helpful in that regard?

GEN. CRADDOCK: I think that enhancement of the 1206 -- I think we're limited now. We've asked for more, would be helpful. And then, secondly, watch that and continue to cascade that into the 1207 as we come back and give you positive results.

REP. DAVIS: Okay. Thank you. We appreciate that. I think --

(Cross talk.)

ADM. STAVRIDIS: Can I just add a comment --

REP. DAVIS: Yes, Admiral.

ADM. STAVRIDIS: -- to that from the SOUTHCOM perspective? First of all, I believe General Craddock's on point in everything he said. I would only add to it -- it's important to note it's kind of a dual key approach; it's both State Department, as in the ambassador, as well as the combatant commander who sort of close that switch together. So it's a real example of sensible interagency partnering and thus, I think, is a powerful tool.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you. Is it -- do you think it could also stimulate our European allies or our allies generally in NATO to be engaging in similar efforts? Is it something that we see on their part, and does it define, in any way, the threats as they see them in the region?
GEN. CRADDOCK: Let me provide two responses, and I hope they're not flip. One is, if it costs money, they probably are not interested. Secondly, when we talk counterterrorism, they view it as a public security issue, not as a national security issue. And that'll be difficult.
REP. DAVIS: Thank you.
General Ward, could I just quickly -- when I happen to take a trip to several of the African countries, and I wondered, to what extent are we using contractors -- military contractors -- to train our African -- military there in Africa?
GEN. WARD: Congresswoman, the ACOTA program, the African Contingency for Operations and Trainee Assistance, a State Department program, is a program that is implemented through contractors. This program is supplemented where we can by uniformed military members as well to help provide a current and living example of those attributes through a uniformed serving member. But that ACOTA program is a State Department program, and it is implemented through contracts.
REP. DAVIS: Would we -- if we had the personnel available, would we prefer to have that done through the Department of Defense?
GEN. WARD: I think the example that's provided by uniformed members -- there's none anymore powerful.
REP. DAVIS: Thank you.
REP. SKELTON: And thank the gentlelady.
We will recess for the two votes, and return. And when we do, Mr. Wilson, you'll be up. (Sounds gavel.)
(Recess.)
REP. SKELTON: I thank the witnesses' indulgence. We, not surprisingly, may have additional votes soon, but we will forge on. Mr. Wilson.
REP. JOE WILSON (R-SC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And Generals, Admiral, thank you for being here today.
I have the perspective of being a member of Congress representing Parris Island, representing Fort Jackson, the Beaufort Marine Air Station, the naval hospital at Beaufort. Additionally, I'm a veteran; 31 years. But more importantly, I've got four sons serving in the military, three in the Army Guard, one a Navy doctor who has served in Iraq. And so I'm very proud of our military. I'm very appreciative as a parent of your service. And I've never been prouder of the American military and I want to thank you. And General Craddock, this is such an exciting time with victory in the Cold War, with the liberation of southern and eastern Europe. I work very closely with the Republic of Bulgaria. I'm the co- chair, along with Congressman Ellen Tauscher, this developing free- market democracy. Two years ago, for the first time in their 1,225 years of existence, their national assembly voted for NATO bases, American bases to be located in their country. Can you tell us what the status is of the new bases in Bulgaria?
GEN. CRADDOCK: Thank you, Congressman. First of all, let me just thank you for your support and those of your sons. We appreciate their service and your support for their service and all the service members.

With regard to Bulgaria, Joint Task Force East, as you know, is the name given to the construct to put a joint task force headquarters stationed in Bulgaria, Romania, and some of their facilities there, and then rotate forces through that. We have received the funding required for the projects in order to put the brick-and-mortar together to accomplish that. We are almost complete now with the finalizing for both countries, Romania and Bulgaria, of the technical agreements -- I think 11 of 12 at the last time I checked, which was a few weeks ago -- have been completed and are in place. My deputy went down to sign off on several of those recently. So I think that we are well on our way to reaching agreement with the "how" of what we're going to do.
The brick-and-mortar is going in to provide the structures that we'll need. And then the last part, the forces available to do the rotation, and then jointly with the Bulgarians and the Romanians, accomplish one, the engagement; and two, the training for us as well as them. Now, we are a bit short on the forces. We are using forces out of European Command to do that because of the intensity and the requirements for OIF and OEF, our request for forces is yet unfilled. We'll continue to do that. I've talked to the commander of European Command, and we're confident we can put together the required forces -- (inaudible) -- engagement.
REP. WILSON: Additionally, I've visited Russia a number of times, and I'm still hopeful for a positive relationship with that country. We have shared interests of fighting terrorism, of also the threat of nuclear proliferation. What has been our contact, and our military contact, with Russia?
GEN. CRADDOCK: European Command meets regularly at the staff brigadier, major general, one- and two-star level with Russian counterparts. They do that to work through work plans for exercise, engagements where we will exchange type units for a period of two or three years. Recently, we finished that for the coming years. That was brought back. And that document, the work plan, is signed by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, with his counterpart, the Russian Chief of Defense. So we have an ongoing engagement. This year, we completed in December, Torgau, which is an annual exercise. A bit more robust this year -- we were encouraged -- than in years past. We are hoping to be able to increase that for the future. The engagement to a EUCOM and the Russian forces I would characterize as difficult. We have not lost any ground, but we are not gaining ground because of the political influence rolling into the military engagement.
REP. WILSON: Thank you very much. And in lieu of the last question, I just want to extent -- every time I see General Ward, my open invitation for a home for him, for he and his command, in Charleston, South Carolina, and on behalf of the Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce, indeed, we have a whole list of reasons why Charleston would be perfectly situated for AFRICOM.
Thank you and congratulations.
REP. SKELTON: The gentleman's out of order.
(Laughter.)
REP. WILSON: We would have had a home for you, too, and a condo, Mr. Chairman.
(Laughter.)
REP. SKELTON: IIIIIIIIIÃ?ve lost my train of thought. (Laughing.) Mr. Johnson.
(Laughter.)
Mr. Johnson, please.
REP. HANK JOHNSON (D-GA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon, gentlemen, and thank you for your service to the nation.
Admiral Stavridis Ã? Stavridis --
ADM. STAVRIDIS: Sir, that's fine.
REP. JOHNSON: Is Cuba a threat to United States security?
ADM. STAVRIDIS: I do not believe that in today's environment Cuba is a military threat to the United States. I think the unfortunate aspect of Cuba is that it is a dictatorship. Three months ago, 614 seats in their legislature were filled by 614 candidates who ran for office, power passed at the fiat of Fidel Castro to his brother Raul without changing anything, without improving human rights, without improving conditions for dissidents, and without opening economically, without anything that would relieve the oppression of decades. So I think of Cuba not as a military threat, but as a threat to democracy in that they are the last remaining nation in this region that does not follow the rule of democracy. And I think that's deeply unfortunate.
REP. JOHNSON: Thank you, sir.
General Ward, AFRICOM's mission requires it to work with both non-DOD and non-U.S. government organizations. Can you describe your experience so far in establishing relationships and partnerships with non-U.S. government organizations conducting stabilization and reconstruction activities within the area of operations of AFRICOM.?
GEN. WARD: Thank you, Congressman.
As was pointed out, we have not taken over those missions just yet from U.S. European Command, U.S. Central Command, and U.S. Pacific Command. But as I --
REP. JOHNSON: -- operations that are ongoing?
GEN. WARD: The operations that are ongoing are being done through mechanisms that we have been using. What I have attempted to do is reinforce the fact with these non-governmental organizations and agencies that it is not our intent to do their work. What we want to do, quite frankly, is have a better understanding of their activities, and where we can, through our actions, be supportive of them. We want to understand and do that.
I have met with representatives of various NGOs as well as other international organizations. I've met with USAID. USAID has hosted several of these meetings that I have conducted with non-governmental organizations so that we can understand more clearly firstly, what they're doing; secondly, where there are common lines of mutual support, where we can pursue those; and then working in ways that we can achieve that mutual benefit. I think, as I have done that, quite frankly, Congressman, there has been receptivity to the approach. There has been a welcomed appreciation for the outreach that we've extended and wanting to know better. And I think the important thing -- another important thing is where we see a contact line that just isn't appropriate, then we certainly, you know, would honor that and stay away.
REP. JOHNSON: What -- typically, what are some of the things that the NGOs and other potential partners value about American involvement in that region of the world? What is it that they want from us?
GEN. WARD: The NGOs that are working there that we have been in contact with -- some of them -- see our ability to get into the environment, the sustained nature of our presence in building relationships. As an example, we have conducted exercises whereby NGOs,, and I'll use one and cite one, Project Hope, has been a part of the exercises. We've gone in and worked with a host nation in addressing their medical capacity requirements. We also have done partnering with NGOs --
REP. JOHNSON: So these are not military operations, these are more soft-power-type operations?
ADM. STAVRIDIS: Correct. It's a blending of the soft power with what we do. Correct. Exactly correct, sir.
REP. JOHNSON: If you could, describe for us the overall Department of Defense involvement in stabilization and reconstruction activities in Africa, including activities funded by DOD, State, USAID, and other agencies where DOD plays a lead or supporting role?
GEN. WARD: Sir, the SSTRs (Security, Stability, Transition and Reconstruction) are projects that are operated under the auspices of our foreign policy -- State Department establishes those programs. Where we are involved is in the transformation and modernization of armed forces of those nations, and we do that through our military-to-military training. We do that through the administration of various programs, the International Military Education and Training program, whereby the professionalization, NCO leadership, officer leadership, the professionalization of their militaries as part of the SSTR, we have a role in doing those sorts of activities, and we do that in greater support of the greater program of stabilization and reconstructing within a particular nation and its military, it's uniformed services.
REP. JOHNSON: What has been your experience so far in the development of a workable interagency process? And in particular, how closely are the State Department and Department of Defense coordinating on plans for the command and on U.S. military efforts in Africa in general?
GEN. WARD: There has been a very close level of cooperation and coordination with the State Department. The State Department was involved in the planning of the command, during the transition team activities. They remain involved by input of the deputy to the commander for military activities or the senior State Department ambassador, who is one of my two deputies. And the planning that we do is done in very close coordination with the Department of State both, whether they're at my headquarters as well as Main State here in Washington.
REP. JOHNSON: Thank you, sir.
REP. SKELTON: I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.
REP. PHIL GINGREY (R-GA): Chairman Skelton, thank you.
In a way, I'm going to continue on really the line of questioning from my friend from Georgia, Representative Johnson. I'm going to direct most of my questions to Admiral Stavridis. But General Ward, what you were just saying in response to Congressman Johnson is, I think, this interagency approach, soft power combined, of course, with the traditional military command that you so ably are tasked to do now with this African Command. I think we're all pleased with what we have heard from you and General Craddock, as well, and his European Command. Admiral Stavridis, in your written testimony to us, I'll make attention to page 35 where you describe pretty much what we just talking about -- an interagency approach in Southern Command, in Central Command, indeed, and African Command.
The chairman was kind enough to create an ad hoc committee on roles and missions that Jim Cooper from Tennessee chaired, and I was the ranking member co-chair. And we are right now looking at that, and very possibly, we're talking about a -- maybe this is an overstatement, but a Goldwater-Nichols II-type approach to speaking softly, but of course, indeed, always carrying a big stick. So I'm very pleased, Admiral, in regard to what you talk about in these three or four pages. In my five minutes, I don't have time to go through that, but I really like that, I like that very much.
I did want to go back to my colleague from California, Ms. Sanchez, who serves with me on the WHINSEC Board of Visitors, as you know, the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. I think it's hugely important, and you described to her some of the things that are done. You called it, I think, that school at Fort Benning, WHINSEC, a premier volume opportunity for training a thousand students at any one time: 18 to 25 different countries mainly in the areas of Southern Command; 60 percent of our training opportunity with them for that region; 35 percent of the curriculum based on human rights. You went on to say that WHINSEC is a powerful force, creating an indelible bond in the region.
I want to ask you this specific question: if we lost that, and unfortunately 201 members of our House of Representatives voted to make WHINSEC go away last year -- and I don't know how many -- maybe one -- have taken the opportunity, your invitation, to come visit and see the good work that is being done down there and the great instruction. But if, you know, we lost that voice this year, who would fill that void? What would be the scenario if we didn't have that when we're looking at, you know, we mentioned about Cuba not being a military threat, but, you know, Hugo Chavez on others? Elaborate on that for us a little bit, if you would.
ADM. STAVRIDIS: I can. There is no -- there would be no quick way to reconstruct the capability for close, integrated cooperation with the many, many nations of this hemisphere who want serious, honorable, human rights-oriented, military-to-military connectivity, training, and exercising together. There simply would be no way to rapidly reconstruct that. And I would argue that if our primary concern is in fact militaries in this region who are responsible members of their societies, who are subject to civilian rule, where admirals and generals come and testify before civilian politicians the way we do so appropriately here in the United States, if that is our goal, than we should be very pleased with the kind of instruction that goes on at WHINSEC.
And, again, I can only reiterate my invitation not only to members of Congress, but to other concerned citizens who are interested in coming and spending a day at WHINSEC. We will accommodate that. And I believe in showing people what is going on. People are concerned about things that happened decades ago. It is not an institution that we should be anything other than extraordinarily proud of today.
REP. GINGREY: Admiral, thank you. And in my just concluding seconds, let me also thank General Craddock and General Ward. This committee has been honored to hear from you on a number of occasions and you do us proud. We thank you so very much for your service.
REP. SKELTON: I thank the gentleman. Ms. Shea-Porter, please.
REP. CAROL SHEA-PORTER (D-NH): Thank you. And I would like to thank you for being here. And I would like to state that I realize that we need to be involved with the continent, with the countries of Africa, and that there's a role to play. But I am not comfortable with the role that we're choosing to play right now. And I would like to read General Ward something from your statement. It says, "Building regional stability and security will take many years of sustained and dedicated effort. There is no conspicuous finish line. Therefore, enduring congressional support is indispensable." Now, that sounds an awful lot like Iraq. You know, the same kind of logic that it's going to take us many, many years to build stability and security.
I'm not sure that we can play on different continents at the level that we have been and to finance the way we've been financing. And clearly, you're asking for financial support here. And as you go on leading, you'll see that you will. And I'm looking at other areas of the world, and I'm concerned. So, I'm going ask you a series of questions because, as you know, we're limited in terms of money -- time and money.
First of all, you've referred to "our partners." Could you please name our partners? Our partners in Africa who are -- could you?
GEN. WARD: There are nations in Africa that have very willingly asked that we assist them in increasing their capacity.

REP. SHEA-PORTER: Can you name them?

GEN. WARD: Senegal, Ghana, South Africa, Liberia, Gabon, Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda, Morocco. There are many nations. Their security organizations, the African Union, the regional economic communities of the African Union, especially the economic community of West African states have all said, "Can you help us in increasing our capacity?" And that's who I'm referring to as I say partners.

REP. SHEA-PORTER: And they want us to actually have a physical presence?

GEN. WARD: They want us to be present with them as they are increasing their capacity, yes, ma'am.

REP. SHEA-PORTER: Okay because last time we said there was only one country that could be named publicly.


GEN. WARD: What I wouldn't put into that -- that referred to a headquarters presence different from the activities we conduct with them.

REP. SHEA-PORTER: Okay. Well, are these countries that you just named wanting us to have a headquarters on the continent and would be willing to host us or have us in their particular nation?

GEN. WARD: Liberia has.

REP. SHEA-PORTER: Okay, so just one.
All right, the other thing is you mentioned terrorist threats. Do you have any idea how many al Qaeda are on the continent or in northern Africa right now? Do you have a guess that you could say? Is this a big problem or something that you're looking out?

GEN. WARD: It is a problem. General Craddock pointed to the flow of foreign fighters from North Africa that go from North Africa into the Middle East. The nations of North Africa, in addition to being concerned about that, are also concerned that these foreign fighters who flow into the Middle East and do whatever they do, those who survive that and then return to their home nations then foment discontent within their nations, as well.

REP. SHEA-PORTER: Are they al Qaeda?

GEN. WARD: They are al Qaeda?

REP. SHEA-PORTER: Do you have any idea how many?

GEN. WARD: I can't put a number on it, no, ma'am.

REP. SHEA-PORTER: Okay. Would you say small, large, you know?

GEN. WARD: It's a disturbing number. It is more than a few.

REP. SHEA-PORTER: One would be disturbing, obviously. I think we could agree on that. You mentioned that they want us to enable them to provide for their own security. And is that the same number of countries you named before? And what are they looking for?

GEN. WARD: They're looking for --

REP. SHEA-PORTER: The last time we talked it was that they were actually looking for some weapons as well as some advice.

GEN. WARD: It's not weapons per se, it's professionalization of their military. It is causing them to plan, conduct, and sustain things in a very legitimate way. As Admiral Stavridis pointed out, doing things in accordance with respect for human dignity, human rights, respect for the rule of law. It is those sorts of professionalization activities that they seek our assistance so that they can become more professional in the conduct of their security operations.

REP. SHEA-PORTER: Okay. Well, my worry, again, is because there is a lot of instability there, and if we do provide weapons and they do have a conflict that they will use the weapons that we provided. Do you have some concern about that?

GEN. WARD: Congresswoman, the provision of weapons is not what we're talking about. We're talking about, quite frankly, sustaining a level of interaction that causes their professionalism to be such that those weapons would not be turned and used against their own populations. And that's where we seek to increase our active security with them. And if that doesn't happen with -- we run the risk of the situation you just described being there when we aren't engaged with them on a sustained basis. This long term point that I made is the fact if we work with nations over time, sustained our contact, quite frankly cause a way of doing business, an ethos if you will, to emerge, that is less likely to lead to the situation that you just described.

REP. SHEA-PORTER: But we have seen that in other areas of the world, where when you have conflict, if turns out they have U.S. weapons. And this is my concern, that if you don't succeed with the vision that you have of stabilizing it, that we'll have that. And my last question is contractors. Any contractors involved?

GEN. WARD: Contractors are involved. Indeed, contractors are being used under the auspices of the State Department, the ACOTA program that we have in place, there are contractors involved.

REP. SHEA-PORTER: Will you be using them?

GEN. WARD: Not for those missions that we are responsible for. We seek to use through the request-for-forces process, uniformed members to do the mission to help us as we perform our security assistance.

REP. SHEA-PORTER: Thank you very much.

REP. SKELTON: Thank you. Mr.Lamborn is next on the list Pardon me. Mr. Franks is next on the list. And then Mr. Lamborn.

REP TRENT FRANKS (R-AZ): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I always want to thank the leadership of the US military for their courage and their commitment to sacrificial freedom. None of what we have in America could be possible. --

(QUESTIONS TO GEN. CRADDOCK RELATED TO U.S. EUROPEAN COMMAND AND MISSILE DEFENSE SITES IN CENTRAL EUROPE)

REP. GENE TAYLOR (D-MS): (QUESTIONS TO ADM. STAVRIDIS RELATED TO FORWARD OPERATING BASE IN MANTA, ECUADOR, AND SOUTHERN COMMAND ACTIVITIES)

REP. DOUG LAMBORN (R-CO): (QUESTIONS TO GEN. CRADDOCK ABOUT MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAM IN CENTRAL EUROPE)

REP. MICHAEL CONWAY (R-TX): (QUESTIONS TO ADM. STAVRIDIS RELATED TO COLOMBIA AND U.S. SOUTHERN COMMAND)

REP. SKELTON: (QUESTIONS TO GEN. CRADDOCK CONCERNING MISSION CONSTRAINTS FOR NATO ALLIES IN AFGHANISTAN)

REP. ELIJA CUMMINGS (D-MD): (NOT PRESENT. SUBMITTED WRITTEN QUESTION READ BY REP. TAYLOR TO GEN. CRADDOCK AND GEN. WARD WITH REFERENCE TO RECENT STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT OF FRANCE TO EXPAND ABILITY OF EUROPEAN FORCES TO PARTNER ON NON-NATO ISSUES.)

GEN. CRADDOCK: (SAID NATO IS PRIMARILY A MILITARY ALLIANCE WITH A POLITICAL COMPONENT WHILE EUROPEAN UNION IS PRIMARILY A POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC ALLIANCE; THE TWO GROUPS SHOULD COMPLEMENT ONE ANOTHER, NOT COMPETE.)

GEN. WARD: I'm with you, Congressman. But as it pertains to AFRICOM, right now the formal procedure that would cause AFRICOM to work with the European Union does not exist. Obviously the U.S. European Command with NATO. But I will tell you the nations of the European Command have expressed a willingness to work with AFRICOM in pursuit of common objectives on the continent of Africa, and we do that on a bilateral basis.

REP. SKELTON: Thank you, Gentleman. ... (crosstalk)... If there are no further questions we will ... again, I appreciate your being with us, your testimony, and we look forward to seeing you again soon. Thank you gentleman.

GEN. WARD: Thank you.

GEN. CRADDOCK AND ADM. STAVRIDIS: Thank you, sir. Thanks.

MEMBER OF PUBLIC AUDIENCE: Bring the troops home. Bring our troops.

(END OF HEARING)