U.S. AFRICOM Public Affairs  Print     Share  

STUTTGART, Germany, 

Mar 26, 2011 — NBC News' Lester Holt interviewed General Carter F. Ham, commander, U.S. Africa Command, via the Defense Video and Imagery Distribution System March 25, 2011, on U.S. AFRICOM's future role as NATO takes authority of operations in Libya.

The following is a transcript of the interview.

LESTER HOLT: General, there's a lot of question about who's in charge. My understanding is NATO has taken over the maritime component of this; it is about to take over the no-fly zone; and may ultimately take over the protection of civilians. But for the time being, can you tell me what your mission is as U.S. commander and who you report to?

GENERAL CARTER HAM: Sure, let me make that clear. There are three components of implementing the provision of UN Security Council Resolution 1973. Maritime, which is the arms embargo that has transitioned to NATO and is under the command of an Italian admiral; no-fly zone, which will transition very soon, probably this weekend, and there'll be a Canadian three-star operating under NATO command for that; and the protect civilians mission, which NATO, as my understanding has agreed to in principal, and I think they'll have discussions over this weekend as precisely how to accept that mission. That should occur pretty shortly. In the interim, the protect civilians mission and currently the no-fly-zone mission are under my authority, and I work for the secretary of defense and the president of the United States.

MR. HOLT: When all this does fall under NATO, is there going to be some disagreement, especially in the protection of civilians mission as it pertains to striking Libyan troops and vehicles on the ground?

GEN. HAM: I think this precisely what NATO will discuss in the coming days. Again, it is my understanding that they have agreed in principal to accept that mission and the discussion over this weekend as to precisely how to do that, what nations will offer forces, under what rules will they operate, those kinds of matters to be decided. Our role, currently under my authority as the current commander, is to make sure of two things: first, that we continue exercising the mission that we have at present to protect civilians, and secondly, that we are prepared to transition responsibility for this mission to NATO quickly, effectively, and without disruption to the ongoing mission.

MR. HOLT: Putting politics aside, the fact that there are joint commanders as it is right now between NATO and the U.S. unilaterally, from your military experience is that an ideal set-up?

GEN. HAM: Well, it's workable because we do so much with NATO and have for so many years, so we have common operating principals; we have great, collaborative discussions on how to do this; and in this particular case, the next higher NATO commander is Admiral Sam Locklear, who is, in his NATO capacity, is the commander of Joint Force Command Naples - a NATO position - but he is also the U.S. commander of Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn, so he is intimately familiar with this mission. And he is exercising presence simultaneously - some U.S. responsibilities and his NATO responsibilities. Ultimately, when the entirety of the mission goes to NATO, assuming that decision is made, there'll be the three-star Canadian officer who I know and have great confidence in, will be the commander and he will report to Admiral Locklear in his NATO role, and of course Admiral Locklear reports to Admiral Stavridis, U.S. officer who is the Supreme Allied Commander Europe.

MR. HOLT: As we noted, there's some disagreement among the allies as to how far to go to strike Libyan ground targets. Once everything falls under a NATO umbrella, if in fact it goes there, will the U.S. have some latitude to strike unilaterally at targets it deems fit?

GEN. HAM: Well I don't think the U.S. would ever limit its military capabilities. I don't think that would be the case. But what we do as a member of the alliance and a contributor to this mission, the U.S. participates in those discussions and the NATO alliance will come to an agreement as to how to exercise that particular mission. The U.S.'s role is envisioned to be one of contributing what we call unique U.S. military capabilities. Those assets, those capabilities that the U.S. possesses that other nations don't posses or don't posses sufficient quantity of to contribute to this mission, and that is what we would envision to do into the future.

MR. HOLT: The mission is, as you stated, is to protect civilians, but to the extent that you're helping the rebels, is that just defacto or are you actively working with them?

GEN. HAM: No, our mission is clear. Our mission is to protect civilians. It is specifically not to offer direct assistance to the opposition forces. Now, as it is, the forces that are attacking civilians are regime forces, so when we attack those and destroy or degrade their capability, that certainly is working to the benefit of the opposition forces; but we are conducting no operations that are directly in support of them. That's not our aim.

MR. HOLT: You have expressed the fact that at the end of the day, Kaddafi could remain in power; and you've suggested that's not the ideal outcome in your opinion, but that leaves the question: what does a standoff look like? If this becomes a stalemate, what happens then? Is this a prolonged mission?

GEN. HAM: Well, I think we're at a very interesting and decisive point here. The president and others have made it clear that it's U.S. policy that the current leader in Libya no longer continue in that role. However, it is not a military aim to achieve that objective. So we don't intent to use military means to achieve that policy state. I think where we are is an opportunity to have, we have stopped the attack on Benghazi; we can create a sufficiently stable situation under NATO command and control, that there'll be an opportunity then for the international community to come together and have discussions about what do they see collectively as the end state in Libya. It's my understanding that there's a large meeting scheduled for early next week which all the participating nations will attend and start have those discussions of the way ahead. So I think it's not formally decided what that end state will be, but there is now an opportunity, I would say a necessity, to have those discussions.

MR. HOLT: Does it bother you or concern you as a veteran commander that you have troops engaged right now in combat and the political leaders are still working out not some minor details?

GEN. HAM: Well, certainly. In an ideal circumstance, that before you commit U.S. forces, or any forces, to a campaign, you have a very, very clear vision of what your strategic end state is and how you're going to match those ways and means to achieve that objective. But sometimes the conditions don't allow you to have that discussion. And in this case, the regime was slaughtering thousands of civilians. I don't think it would be appropriate to wait and have that strategic discussion, albeit necessary, without intervene. So I think in this case, our intervention was appropriate to stop the attack on civilians, do the best we can to prevent further attacks on civilians, and set the conditions for those strategic discussions to now occur.

MR. HOLT: And I want to make sure we're clear on the point. I think a lot of people look at this and they look at the years of the no-fly zones being patrolled in Iraq and certainly the Balkans. Is it your expectation that this is going to be measure in weeks, months, what?

GEN. HAM: I don't know. In the next phase of this, I don't have a good sense of how long that will be required to be in place. That's I think the necessity of these discussions which will occur next week in London. It is a matter for NATO and for all the contributing nations of the international community to have that discussion. My sense is, because of so many other global commitments, that none of the nations in the international community are interested in a protracted engagement, but would rather look for definitive opportunities to achieve an agreed-upon end state. And I think that's what they'll talk about next week.

MR. HOLT: And last, if I can just get your observation of what's happening on the ground. This has been talked about as a pro-democracy movement to oust Moammar Kaddafi. But, does it also and perhaps more resemble a civil war to you?

GEN. HAM: I don't know that I would use that term because that kind of to me that conveys that there are two kind of well organized groups and I'm not sure that that's exactly what we're seeing. Rather, how I would describe it, is a regime that is chosen to attack its own people who have voiced some dissatisfaction with the existing government. And rather than allowing some opportunity for the civil discourse of those disagreements, the regime has decided to kill them. So again, I wouldn't describe it as such, and I think our mission that we presently have under UNSCR1973 is clear - arms embargo, no-fly zone and protect civilians.

MR. HOLT: Alright General Ham, we'll end it right there. Thank you so much for your time sir. And certainly our thoughts are with those of your troops in harm's way and we appreciate all you're doing.

GEN. HAM: Thank you very much. That's heartfelt and very much appreciated. They're doing - the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines of all the nations - are doing a magnificent job, and appreciate your best wishes.

MR. HOLT: Alright, you guys be well. Thank you sir.