During a visit to the headquarters of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) in Stuttgart, Germany on June 26, 2008, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen spoke to approximately 500 AFRICOM staff members and responded to questions. Among the highlights: Mullen thanked staff members for their continued dedication and support He expressed enthusiasm for the command's future and emphasized the importance of a combatant command with a renewed focus on Africa Acknowledging the challenges facing the command, he asked the staff to be prepared for change. "We're living in a world of constant change. There's no better place that's an example of change than this command" He described strong leadership as one of the most critical components in AFRICOM's development stages and called on staff to "lead well" in this transition period He told staff, "You, in many ways, represent the face of the future with respect to our combatant commands." "The most exciting part of what you're doing, in my view, right now, is to stand up and start something new and, in fact, lay the groundwork for what will become, 10 to 20 years from now, an institution that has great relevance and great impact," said Mullen. Following is the transcript of the speech and question and answer session: GEN WILLIAM WARD: (In progress) -- Naval Operations -- the 28th chief of Naval Operations, a staunch supporter of U.S. Africa Command and what we want to do in partnership with others, an avid supporter of warriors and wounded warriors and civilians of our defense establishment, and happy to be here to be with you -- spend some time with you -- Teammates: the 17th Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff - Admiral Mike Mullen. Welcome. (Applause.) ADMIRAL MICHAEL G. MULLEN: Good morning. It's great to be here. (Inaudible.) In almost -- or actually going on 41 years I can say I've never been to Stuttgart, and obviously haven't been to this command. So it's a real treat for me when I'm able to come to places like this that I have never been. It's a reminder that in all those jobs over many, many years, one of the real treats has been that everyone has been different; everyone I've been able to learn and grow, and no more -- there is no place where that is more evident than here in Stuttgart and at Kelley and in fact in AFRICOM. So it has been very special to -- actually I lived in Italy -- in this part of the world in 2004, 2005 for a brief -- it was going to be a two- or three-year tour; it turned out to be seven months. My wife said it was like a deployment with furniture -- (laughter) -- and had every intention of getting up here to find out more about EUCOM and just never made it. And it was really in that timeframe, just to you give you some perspective -- some of my perspective on this command, where we started looking much more heavily at Africa in terms of engagement and partnerships, in challenges. And particularly what struck me -- and it's one thing to see this from the United States' perspective, but when you're living in the area and you're dealing with countries in this part of the world, to see the challenges that are here in terms of a continent that clearly had the focus of EUCOM but between Europe and Africa it's pretty tough to -- the focus was the diffused -- and this is my view -- dramatically diffused and Africa couldn't -- you just couldn't give it the attention that it needed, and it is in that light that -- I think that's when the seeds were planted to move in this direction and I'm really excited about what you're doing, about this command, and about the need for it. Again, back to my brief time in Italy and dealing with leaders, particularly in the Southern -- in the Mediterranean, but in Southern Europe, who were extremely concerned about the challenges that Africa brings and the need to engage in ways that we hadn't ever. I was, about two or three weeks ago, in Singapore at the Shangri-La Dialogue, which is an annual conference, for two or three days, where the regional -- all the regional countries gather, many in security issues, and exchanged both ideas -- and over a period of about two days I met with 20 or 25 of my counterparts, principally from nations in that part of the world. And I'm oftentimes asked about AFRICOM and what's the mission and what's the intent, and in each of those meetings I sat down with Admiral Keating and then my counterpart from countries X, Y, or Z. And Keating obviously is someone who represents all of the Pacific, and that's a very robust command. It's been out there for a long, long time, so it's fully understood about the relationships, about the support, about where we are and where we're headed. And as I sat there, within, I don't know, a couple of hours after leaving that meeting, someone asked me about AFRICOM, and my view of it was that where we are right now with AFRICOM, if I could take where I am in PACOM or in EUCOM or in some other combatant command and say fast-forward 10 years or 20 years -- 10 to 20 years from now, and where I want to be with AFRICOM is exactly where I was in Singapore the other day, with a very comfortable relationship, a very comfortable engagement, a very comfortable support mechanism to engage that part of the world and to be able to focus on a time and to focus in an area, which is clearly what was evident in the engagements that we were in with Admiral Keating. That message is not widely understood yet. I think one of our challenges is to really make sure -- you just can't answer that question often because people are still concerned about it. I can remember when we -- when I was, again, as the head Navy guy down in Naples and we sent the Emory S. Land down to the Gulf of Guinea, I think it was late 2004, early 2005, and there were a lot of questions, not just questions raised by those in Africa about what are you doing in terms of engaging in the Gulf of Guinea, but a lot of questions from a group of the colonialists that had great interest in that part of the world, whether it was Spain or Portugal or France or Italy or -- you know, countries that have obviously been engaged there for decades. And as I remind people when we talk about this, the age of the colonial powers down there ended in the 1960s, not in the 1860s or the 1760s, so it's still very fresh in a lot of people's minds about that aspect of it. And what we tried to do, and I know you're doing now, was -- there isn't any conspiracy theory here. It is open, it is transparent, and we invited then those countries to provide riders on the ship. And I would just use that as an example because I know those concerns are still there and we still -- we have to constantly engage these countries as well as the concerns obviously on the continent itself. So, first of all, I really want to say this morning just thanks for what you're doing. It's actually an exciting time, standing up a new command, and I have empathy for you in the sense that you're trying to stand up a new command. You're moving from building to building; that's obvious just driving through here. You've got new people coming in, and at the same time you're actually in a command which is operating at the time. So I can really appreciate -- and as I indicated, I'm empathetic to the fact that there's so much going on right now as you stand up this command. But I can tell you -- and I honestly deal with all the combatant commanders -- of those that are out there, the most exciting part of what you're doing, in my view, right now is to stand up there and start something new and in fact lay the groundwork for what will become, 10 to 20 years from now, an institution that has great relevance and great impact. And I believe -- I believe that -- I can't overstate the importance of this command because I think Africa represents all the challenges, both on the upside and there are some significant challenges that we have to address that are sort of -- it's the kind of thing that -- I believe they're coming our way. We either have to engage them or they're going to come to us, as a country and actually as a world. It's a continent with great resources; it's a continent with tremendous famine, tremendous challenges, disease; governments, some of whom are extremely stable and some of whom are clearly not very stable at all. It is also a place where there are opportunities for terrorists to evolve. The Trans-Sahara is an area of concern. Certainly HOA is a big concern, and we've got to reference it. As I indicated, if we don't do that, they're going to be coming our way; they are coming our way. So I can't say enough about how much I appreciate what you're doing, the importance of what you're doing, and the difference it's going to make, not just in the near term but in the long term. And you've been through a lot. Your families have been through a lot, both moving around, getting established, and all the things that are associated with that, at the same time trying to run a command. So I'm grateful to you and for your families who are so supportive of you here. I oftentimes talk about change, and I can't think of any area where things are changing more rapidly, I guess, than here in this command. And I'd like to say -- and there certainly will be things that settle out, and I'd like to say we're going to -- everything's going to kind of settle out steady state, but I just don't believe that anymore. We're living in a world of constant change and that will continue to evolve. And I think as we engage more and more and we get more and more comfortable with what we're doing here in this command, that will foment change and adjustments that we will have to continue to meet country by country, region by region in Africa. And then, how do we interface with the boundaries of our command, whether it's EUCOM or CENTCOM, and that's going to continue to be a challenge as well. And I also believe that we're living in a time where those boundaries just have to be solved. Not too long ago all the boundaries from one combatant command to another were pretty hard, and we're now living in a time where we've got to be able to work across those boundaries and work across them very, very rapidly. So there's -- I was in Fort Lewis last week and Fort Stewart the week before that, and I talked to our young soldiers about things that are changing. And in fact, I do this for all the services. We're in a time where we're going to have to change how we, I think, train people, how we educate people. We're looking at a time of change with respect to retention, recruiting. I think how eventually we get to a point where we change how we promote people. All those things are very much in play right at the heart of, obviously, them and their career paths and what they're doing professionally. It's an extraordinarily challenging time in that regard, and yet it's an exciting time because it brings -- it should make us think about how, as institutions, how we're going to do that to make sure we keep the best young people in the world, which is where right now with our military. And there are, just looking in this audience -- and I'm reminded in looking at the audience of the difference in this command because there are -- this is an integrated effort across our entire interagency -- significant integration obviously from the State Department, and I think you in many ways represent the face of the future with respect to our combatant command. You may be leading what we're doing in our government in that regard. It's not lost on me as we stood up Africa Command -- and Admiral Jim Stavridis down in Southern Command is looking at his staff and is actually adjusting his staff and his mission based on what he's seen us do or what you do in AFRICOM because of the engagement requirements that he has and the needs that he has in terms of overall capabilities, which far exceed just that of the military. And I believe that as a government in the century that we're living in right now we're not well organized for meeting the needs that are out there, and that this command represents a much more integrated effort in that regard to get across the entirety of our government in terms of engagement and assistance and partnerships and sustained relationships across the entire spectrum of possibilities for our governments. And it's, I might say, looked at as we need to back this up into Washington and make those kinds of changes in Washington as well. So it is a time of enormous change, not just here locally, but even if you were totally settled out, things would be changing and continue to change. And it's really important in what you're doing and in that change that you tell the world -- you know, you are literally the center of gravity for us as a -- certainly as a military but I believe in our government for what's going on in Africa and how do you spread that word, and then what are the needs that you have in making sure you're in touch with us and we can support you. We're working hard. It may not be evident, but we're working hard from a resource standpoint, from a personnel standpoint to be supportive as you both stand up and as you get to some level of sustainment over the next couple of years. And that's a real commitment from me and my staff in Washington because of the priority and the significance of this command. So a tremendous time of change in that regard across the -- and you're going to see things that a lot of other people don't see, and I just encourage you to make sure you stay active. I've had the real pleasure of knowing General Ward really since '04 when I was here, and I can't think of a better individual to lead this. I was extremely excited -- (inaudible) -- the idea actually took root and has come to fruition and that we were fortunate enough to have an individual of his caliber be able to -- who has been over here, who is widely known -- his reputation is spectacular -- to lead this effort, and we will continue as much as we possibly can to support that. But by and large it's got to happen here, and then let us know how we can help. And I'm very interested to have you continue to lead it. And hopefully in a couple of minutes I'll stop talking and listen to what your questions are, and if it's an area of concern, part of what I get out of these town halls are those areas of concern, that you'd let me know what those are, and if I don't have a complete answer to a question, I'll take your email address back. I read my own email and I answer my own email. I'd be happy to get back to you with a more complete answer in the area that I can't give you now. So I'm very grateful for what you're doing. We're living in a time where things just continue to change, and I can talk about that for a long time. There's no better place, there's no place that's more of an example of change than this command and what's you're -- (inaudible) -- here. And then the third piece I'd like to cover is just -- is leadership. And as I look around the audience here, it's senior enough -- and my expectations about leadership actually are that when things are toughest, we must lead well. And when we don't have as much definition as we might have, when the clarity in transition, which is where you are right now, may not be what it is, it's a time where leadership really makes a difference. And we must -- and it isn't just leading here; it really is leading in a brand new command, and in a command that, quite frankly, the United States government has to have: its composition, its mission, the kind of strategic engagement requirements that are here. And you lead in different ways than just about anyplace else we have in the world, and I'm very grateful for that, and at the same time have great expectations. And it's not just those of us in uniform that are here. Again, as I look around, tremendously important equal partner in our government, quite frankly, are all the civilians who serve and serve so well and so nobly throughout the world in all of our services in all of our departments, and at the same time it's such a critical part of this command and what we're going to be doing in the future. The other thing I would say is tell your friends. We need -- one of the things I think about when I am in various fora is we try because -- not just lead well or lead you well, but we also train our reliefs, so we need to be thinking about who's coming next, and so I'm actually very serious about telling your friends, bringing other very competent people, as you look at what the needs are, to bring them into this command, and how does that happen over time? And that's obviously not just on the military side; that would be on the civilian side as well. And there is an unknown -- again, there is uncertainty here. There is -- it's not like you would be going to EUCOM or to PACOM or to CENTCOM. There's pretty much no responders. And so that just reemphasizes the requirement to make sure people understand who we are, what we're doing, what our mission is, how exciting it is to make a difference wherever it might be. So leading well, taking care of each other, leading well in this command is absolutely vital. So those are just three quick thoughts. I'm extremely grateful for what you're doing, actually know an awful lot about staying -- I do; I stay engaged in it and will continue to do that. There's no better group that represents living in a time of change, and it's not going to settle out. I don't mean that some things won't settle out, but by and large there's a lot of -- there are an awful lot of change that you'll see that happen to change our lives and the world that we're living in, and certainly just to emphasize that you are -- my expectations are that you lead, you are doing that, and that you continue to do that. And that leadership comes from junior and senior, at the peer level on both the military side and on the civilian side. There is a great expectation; this is not very far from NATO, as many of you know, and there is just a -- there's a great expectation that the United States provide a leadership role. And that doesn't need to be -- that covers a full spectrum of leadership. It can be very active or very passive, but the constancy of the United States and the constancy of that kind of leadership and the difference that it makes in the long run. And I don't mean that from any kind of an arrogant perspective, anything along those lines, but that is a really important, solid ingredient for what's going on in meeting the challenges of the world right now. And they are significant, and a lot of them come out of -- a lot of them develop -- (inaudible) -- the representative and the engagement that you have -- we have to lead, but you in particular in Africa. So thanks for what you're doing. We're living in a time of great change, and lead well. And I'm happy to take a few questions. (Pause.) That's a normal pregnant pause. (Laughter.) Q: Good morning, Admiral. I'm Major -- (inaudible) -- from Operations and Logistics. For quite a while now the trend in the military has been towards improving joint operations, but recently it was announced that the Army had stood up a Task Force Odin (sp?)in Iraq, which is a reconnaissance aviation battalion -- (inaudible). Does this indicate a trend away from service interdependent joint operations or a trend back to service dependence? ADM. MULLEN: When an individual event occurs, I try not to call it a trend. And actually, because I get -- frequently I'm asked questions when something happens and does that mean that this is a new state, and I'm actually very familiar with Odin. What Odin represents to me more than anything else is a response to this almost overwhelming requirement for additional ISR: intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. And the way I think about ISR, from my perspective, starting in about the 2001 timeframe when many of us -- and I was a three-star, and if any of us were looking at ISR and what does it mean and how do you generate it, quite frankly we didn't -- this is my view -- we didn't do a very good job answering that question. If you get into a fight and lives are on the line and it starts to energize the juices, the sense of urgency, then we can no longer -- we could no longer not answer that question because -- (inaudible) -- multiplied. And I'm sure that you've seen over the last year or so the tremendous focus on it and the difference that it's making. And it's a combination of manned and unmanned; it's a combination of obviously intelligence focus. It's a combination of -- and it isn't just all flat-front because it's very much supported on the human intelligence side as well. I mean, it's that entire capability, which is such an important enabler. So Odin, in my view, is a response to the need to support the fight right now. And we also don't have -- I was at Nellis and Fort Lewis last week -- and I'll use both those places as an example of both change and sense of urgency -- and what's going on at Nellis is lessons learned from the counterterrorism fight, from the irregular warfare fight, which used to take upwards of one to two years to get into the pubs and into the fight, and we're now doing that in three months. And the same thing at Fort Lewis where we're taking lessons from those who have just gotten back -- and, again, it used to take six years or so to get this into the fight and now it's down to one to two years to get it into the publications and into the fight as well. And all that is cycle time, and I think -- and it's improved cycle time, and it is tied very much to the sense of urgency because people are dying. And so Odin represents that to me more than anything else. Now, clearly it also is representative of -- the issue that we have is who's going to control what kinds of -- (inaudible). And this whole discussion about manned and unmanned and airspace and what's organic and what's theater and how do we support that, and I think that's a very healthy both discussion to have -- it's a really critical enabler and it's all part of what is ISR really going to be for the future? But we've got to get it into the fight now and clearly we've got to look at having a very robust ISR capability in the future, and I think it's going to be a combination of organic and theater and national assets. So, to me it represents that much more closely than it does a significant joint change. We're joint down -- I mean, when you look at where we are in the joint world now versus where we were in Desert Storm, it's night and day, and in places it's right down to the ground and in other places it isn't. And I think it will continue. When I think about jointness here, I actually think about -- I think a requirement of this command, and others quite frankly -- back to our government -- that we understand each other across agencies -- not just services anymore but across agencies in a much more comprehensive way than we have in the past. And this is to me the next big joint step that we've got to take with the government in order to have the kind of impact, create the kind of relationships and the sustaining power that a command like this will have, and I think is representative of what commands need to do around the world. Q: Hi, sir -- (inaudible). I know this is a two-pronged attack from the Ops folks (inaudible). Sir, from your perspective, being up on the Hill, what kind of support do you see from the Hill for AFRICOM, and also, do you see that support changing in the future with the elections, and could you elaborate? ADM. MULLEN: I'm not overly concerned about -- I'm not overly concerned about change with respect to AFRICOM in this transition to a new administration. That doesn't mean we won't have challenges associated with it, but I think clearly this is a need that's out there that -- it has very broad support. That said, the questions continue to come up. I don't see a lack of support on the Hill; what I see is a lack of understanding. And that is an engagement requirement that we all have to stay with. And, I mean, you have to do it here, I have to do it routinely, and it is still there with some significant senior leaders on the Hill that we're just going to have to stay engaged with. I don't see them pushing back; I see them asking questions. And I think it's reflective of the newness of it and also, you know, getting started can be very difficult. I mean, a couple of the real issues are -- and this is -- you know, being here at Kelley Barracks is a great example of where's the headquarters going to be? And there are a few sensitivities associated with that tied to what I said earlier about footprint in Africa. We haven't made that decision yet. We've made the decision we're going to be here for the next several years and then -- it's my view that it's much more important to emphasize projects and engagement than it is footprint. And the issue of footprint in Africa -- actually it's pretty sensitive all over the world. We don't think about that in places where we've got established footprint and have had footprints for many, many years. We just don't have that in Africa, and we'll get -- you know, we will make decisions with respect to that sometime down the road, and it may change or it may be here; we just don't know. But right now it's going to be here as we get started and look to the best way to do this down the road. Very clear mission requirements and mission statements and support needed to execute that mission. But staying engaged with leaders and principal staff members in lots of places, but particularly on the Hill, is really important. So, I mean, I'm comfortable that we will transition well to a new administration. I believe strongly in the mission. It is certainly due, if not overdue, to have this kind of focus on Africa and focus on an engagement perspective and a relationship perspective. And there are huge needs that are being met by you here. Q: Sir, I'm (withheld) from Operations and Logistics. A recent article -- ADM. MULLEN: Did you guys get together before this? (Laughter.) Q: No, no, sir, just the ops guys here, and the rest of the family. In a recent article in Inside Defense there is a discussion on Gates approves new defense strategy over objections of service chiefs, and I wonder if you'd like to comment on that. ADM. MULLEN: I basically don't agree with the premise of the article. I was at the meetings; I know exactly what happened there. And he has since -- he has -- I can remember certainly since the meetings we had, Secretary Gates has signed off on national defense strategy. One of the things that Secretary Gates provides and sparks is a pretty healthy debate about where we are, and there's a tremendous opportunity with him to have a robust discussion about lots of things, and this is just one example. So we had a rigorous debate about it. In the end there was a discussion specifically about rifts. In Washington-speak what that typically means is money and are you going to have more money or less money tied to more or less risk. And we had a pretty healthy discussion about that, and in the end, prior to the time that he signed it out, in the discussion that he had with us as joint chiefs, we reached a point where we were in agreement with going ahead, and that's what he signed off. So I fundamentally disagree with the premise of the article. Q: Sir, Lieutenant Commander (withheld) from Strategy, Plans, and programs directorate. I'm a reservist here. I volunteered for a year of duty -- (inaudible) -- and I have a question about the Army reserve integration with total force going forward. It seems, particularly from the Navy point of view, individual augmentees, IMAs are being used more and more to support filling momentary holes, being taken from active commands in PACOM and elsewhere, sent here, sent other places. At the same time, for instance, I was just talking to my boss yesterday and he'd like to have me back for two months next year to support a military surge opportunity there, but the flexibility of mandates -- (inaudible) -- is very difficult to arrange the funding, get that when you need it to help and support it. Is there a fresh look at manpower, how the reserves and National Guard are being used, how they can be integrated to support the surge requirements that we're facing both now -- maybe a more stable way of integrating them over the next several years? ADM. MULLEN: Actually I won't be able to give you a very comprehensive answer to that. I'm probably going to take the question and get back to you. I can't say enough -- I can't make enough positive comments about the differences the Guard and reserve have made, I mean, for a long time but the change and the integration and the difference that has been made by the Guard and reserves since 911 have been extraordinary. We could not be anywhere close to where we are in these two wars -- and in fact in other requirements, not the least of which would be something like standing up a new command here, without the tremendous support, and in some ways the flexibility that the Guard and particularly the reserve gives us. I know that each -- and speaking of change, I know that each service is going through a pretty dramatic shift in how we do reserves, specifically, and clearly we're in the midst of that with our Guard -- both our Air Guard and our Army Guard. And, again, I can't say enough good things about the differences they've made. And, quite frankly, against what -- apart -- if I could get to 2000 or 1999 and said, this is what I'm going to do with my Guard and reserve in the next seven or eight years, I think people would have looked at me and said -- and wondered if I was, you know, seeing things very clearly. I think the requirements for individual augmentees specifically in the commands -- and it goes back to as we evolve. I mean, when you look at the fight that we're in and the kinds of things we're doing now, which is what we were doing three or four years ago, or not doing, that's a dramatic shift. And so we continue to evolve about needs without being, oftentimes, very good about projecting them a long time in advance because it's difficult to predict -- back to the requirements continuously change. And then we get into how do you get the people to do this, and the reserve in particular offer opportunities -- individuals like you and thousands of others who said I'll go on active duty for a period of time and do this. To me that's more of a characteristic right now of our reserve than it is getting to some steady state that I know it's going to be -- it's just because of the time that we're living in. Whether we're doing -- I know that from the Navy's perspective and the Navy's shift in how we integrated -- how the Navy has more integrated the reserve to blur the lines between active and the reserve has been significant in recent years. Again, I'm extremely comfortable, particularly on the Air Guard side with active and reserve integration, and we are going through a significant time of change in the National Guard side because of the deployments, because of the focus, because the homeland defense mission and the response capability that's there as well. So there's a whole lot going on, which fundamentally I don't think we're going to get to any kind of steady state here in the near future. It would surprise me if we're not looking at a more comprehensive way to do this, which is what I'll call and see if I can get you a better answer, but to say this is going to kind of settle out here in the next year or two I think -- I can't see that at this point. I mean, I'd like to have that but I just can't see it because things are changing so rapidly. That's it? Q: Good morning, sir. (Withheld) from the Outreach Directorate, Strategic Communication Division. Our development of a strategic communication process here at the command has been strongly influenced by the memo that you drafted in December of last year, and I was wondering if you could speak to your vision for how strategic communication should be integrated into the process of command planning and execution. Thank you. ADM. MULLEN: Many of us have been chasing the strategic communication goal for some time, and when people use that term, my first question is, what does it mean? And it can mean a lot of things or it can mean not much at all. And I worry a great deal about spending too much time defining it at a time when we should be executing it. And I fundamentally believe that we communicate most effectively through our actions, through actually what we're doing. That doesn't mean we shouldn't communicate about them, that we shouldn't be thinking of how we're going to get the word out and how we actively and aggressively address our ability to communicate because I think without that fully we wouldn't be anywhere close to as effective as we possibly could be without good communication. But I do worry about this umbrella that's called strategic communications, what it really means. It has a very nice definition, but, I mean, in fact, what does it really mean as we try to do that? We live in a time -- back to things changing all the time -- of such tremendous information flow, and there's information out there, there's -- where I go with this, very broadly, not just in the communication world, is I'm extremely interested in a level of knowledge, not just more information flow, and understanding the audiences and how do you effectively get to -- and we've all got multiple audiences that we're talking to, and so how do you stratify that in ways that gets your message -- whatever the message you want to get to those who would be -- who you'd want to affect? We're living in an era of information operation, and what does that mean, and then you start to get -- there's a classified side of this and an unclassified side of this, although principally what I was talking about in that memorandum is the unclassified: How do we communicate with the public -- with all the audience, not just the public, but certainly the public is one of them. And I can't think of a command where it would be more important right now than to very clearly communicate and constantly communicate and constantly follow up and get feedback. The other thing is get feedback on that in order to adjust to a communication strategy, to have the effects that we want it to have. And I think that's a really important piece as well is what are we trying to get done here? What am I trying to -- what effects am I trying to generate, specifically with respect to communications? And I worry about setting up a big bureaucracy to do this, which is kind of where we were in the Department of Defense, and I'm also much more comfortable in what I call the public affairs world because that's kind of where I grew up and that is a path that's pretty clear to me. I know how to communicate through that path, and I think having that effectively become the, quote, unquote, "strategic communications enabler," if you will, I was pretty comfortable with. And so we were spending far too much time internally trying to figure out what we were doing as opposed to communicating, and it was really focused on active government. And in the end it gets down to some basics for me, and one of them is the simplest form I think we really communicate most effectively: through our actions, through our deeds, through what is actually going on out there. That's the message that people really take away. And I would want us to look at, as in many things, what's actually going on in execution -- not the think piece, but what actually is happening out there and to be in touch with that and feed that back into the system of communications, which then adjusts how I do it in the future. And particularly in the world we're living in right now, it's a vital, vital requirement that we get this part, and I didn't believe we had it, which is why I wrote that memorandum in the first place. Good morning. Q: Good morning. Major (Withheld), Operations and Logistics. Sir, you mentioned recruiting and retention. ADM. MULLEN: Yes. Q: Are there any areas that currently concern you in regards to recruiting and retention, and where do you see that we need to change the way we're doing things? ADM. MULLEN: Boy, there's an awful lot going on there. First of all, our recruiting and retention numbers are good. Month to month they're good; the services are making them. But on the recruiting side right now, the propensity to serve is down at a time where we have an unpopular war, and in fact, from the population of 18- to 24-year-olds in our country, seven out of 10 are not qualified to come into the military. So in the population that's there, we're recruiting from an extraordinarily small minority. And those three out of 10, by the way are all not coming into the military because a bunch of them are going to college, a bunch of them are going into the workplace, and so competing for those is absolutely vital, and certainly recognizing the environment that we're in to do that. That said -- and my hat's off to our recruiters in all the services because we continue to meet our goals, and yet there are some shortfalls and we recognize that, and you will see -- one of the questions I've gotten in the last couple of weeks, both at Fort Lewis and at Fort Stewart, and I've gotten previous, is I'm watching the Army and the Marine Corps as well -- I'll come back to the Marine Corps in a second -- but I'm watching the Army change their culture in both recruiting and retention, so I have E-7s or E-6s in the Army stand up and say, hey, I'm not getting any bonus money and you're paying this new recruit that hasn't done anything 30,000 or 40,000 to come in; what about me? Very natural question, and the answer is, to me, that we've got a finite amount of money; you focus it where you need it, and right now I have a tremendous need at the recruiting level to bring people in. So that's why the bonus money goes there. That's not unusual for bonus money. Services forever put bonus money where they need it the most. So clearly recruiting bonuses for young people is a big change, but I see that in the retention side as well because the Army's now giving out bonuses that they never did before. So is the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps historically has been our youngest corps, and you stayed for four years and then essentially you left, and that was the message you got. There was a rare -- you know, the rare exception was you stayed in, but the Marine Corps basically was turning over, renewing its base all the time. And the Marine Corps can't meet its growth requirement, which is up to 202,000 from 175,000 in the next couple of years, without changing its retention model in addition to recruiting. So the Marine Corps is going through its own version of that, so there's cultural changes, particularly in those two services. On the retention side, I am concerned about what I've seen in the last couple months, specifically with some of our mid-grade NCOs in the Air Force, that I'm starting to see an Air Force we just haven't seen historically, not meeting -- a time that we don't meet our goals, and I'm starting to see that in the Air Force with some of our mid-grade levels, and so we're watching that very carefully as well. And in the end, this is not about the Air Force recruiting versus the Marine Corps versus the Army versus the Navy. This is about all of us recruiting for the best people and competing with the best people in the workplace -- in the civilian workplace. And it gets back to an entire host of requirements that we have broadly described as creating a world-class workplace, making sure we've got a quality of life support programs and mechanisms, making sure that we've got support for our families, that we've got support for families now with dual incomes -- a huge need that we have that I see time and time again is improved daycare. And I see that literally around the world, whether it's overseas or every base -- almost every base I go to. I've really been to one or two places where daycare is seen as in good shape. Fort Carson is sort of my model right now in daycare. But that requirement -- and so how do we meet all those, because if we don't meet that for our young people, they're going to go to organizations that are meeting it, and that's the challenge that we have. And there's an awful lot of leadership focus on this, not unlike what I said about strategic communications. We've got a lot of programs. I've very interested in -- I don't need a whole lot more programs right now; I need to know what's happening with the programs. I need to know what the output is and that we evaluate that in terms of the effectiveness of the programs that are all inputs to whether a young individual and their family stays or goes. So we don't have -- I don't think we have a lot of margins for error here right now because of a lot of things on both those things, both recruiting and retention. I am hopeful -- you probably have seen in the last, well, certainly months, but in the last couple of weeks this discussion about the improved GI bill, about transferability of GI benefits to dependents, all of which I think are really positive steps to enhance our ability to both recruit and retain. Q: Good morning, sir. (Withheld)-- Outreach Directorate. Along those lines, given these stresses on the force, do you see an increased reliance on civilians to fill jobs in military -- (inaudible) -- and how do you see the role of contractors changing over the next couple years? ADM. MULLEN: I speak to this from the military perspective because I've grown up in the military and I know what it takes to both recruit, retain, promote, advance, retire, you know, throughout the military system. I'm not as smart as I need to be on the civilian side. When I look at where we are, both from a government perspective and expectations for our civilians, not just now but in the future, I think we've got some dramatic changes to make. And one of the reasons we have been -- we've struggled getting government civilians into Afghanistan and Iraq specifically, but even some other places, is we didn't really set expectations very high with respect to that, and now we have a need which has emerged for all of us to be much more expeditionary, but we didn't bring an individual into the Foreign Service or into the Treasury Department or the Agriculture Department with an expectation that I'd be deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq for three months or four months or a year. And I think we've got to change those expectations and change how we recruit, and the entirety of our government is going to be much more expeditionary than we have in the past. And it's not just Iraq and Afghanistan because the requirements in this command as well to do that I believe in the long run -- to engage that way in Africa. And then an extension of that is, okay, where are we -- how do we marry that up with the contractor support that's required? And I think we're sort of in mid-stride right now. I mean, in the '90s we dramatically reduced the size of our military and a lot of what we did for a living we contracted out, and I would argue in some cases we probably contracted out too much. That's been evident. Some of it is very applicable for contractors to support, both -- I mean, literally in the fight, in theater as well as in commands like this, and I think we need to very carefully and continuously evaluate that. I think there will be a very important place for contractors for as far as I can see into the future, just what's the right balance? What are the right areas? And the question I've asked now is have we -- what I'm trying to get an answer from my own staff is, what does it mean, not just with where we are right now, but what does it mean for the future? How dependent am I on what kinds of contract support in the world that I see in the future wherever I might go? And I don't have an answer for that. So it's a great question, and again, we're in the middle of a couple of fights right now. We're trying to do other things throughout the world, and so we're using contractor support where we know we need capability or capacity, and whether that would be permanent, long term or not, I don't know. Q: Good morning, sir. I'm (withheld), not -- (inaudible) -- yet anyway; maybe this time next year. I have a question about your function as a senior military advisor to the president -- not the secretary but the president. ADM. MULLEN: Right. Q: This is a politically agnostic question, so I want to give you a scenario. You'll be in the same job seven months from now in January '09 in the back of your limousine going across the Potomac, and you pull up to the White House, and you walk into the Oval Office and Mr. Obama says, hey, am I glad to have you here? Some coffee? Yes, I like coffee. Let's sit down and talk. He looks over at you -- and you've thought about this, I'm sure -- as the senior military advisor to the president, what do you suggest to President Obama when he says, as you know, I've campaigned under a platform of removing our military as quickly as possible to Iraq. He gives you a laundry list of here's how you do it. How do you frame this conversation in the present title that you wear? ADM. MULLEN: First of all, it's June; it's not January -- (laughter) -- and I don't know who's going to be sitting in that office in January. I'm actually frequently asked this question and it is important for us -- and you said agnostic and I think that's a great word -- that those of us in the military remain neutral. Actually, we should do that all the time from the political point of view. It is a time now where obviously the scent of that -- and clearly with an impending change of administrations from the standpoint of a new president, whether it's Senator McCain or Senator Obama, there's going to be change which occur. I feel, first of all, very fortunate to be in the position I'm in. I have tremendous opportunity to advise the current president and my expectations are that I will continue to have that opportunity with the next president. And that we're living in challenging times certainly is very obvious. But right now, myself as well as you and everybody else, we're charged with carrying out the orders of the president of the United States, and that's this president, and we'll continue to do that. And then when we get someone else in that office and the policies -- and I'm sure there will be policy adjustments -- and the policies change, I'll give my best advice to whoever that might be, and I don't presume who that will be, but for the record there's two individuals, and then I'll take my orders and we'll all march off and carry them out. That said, we are living -- I mean, because of where we are in the cycle, clearly we're going to go through the conventions here in the next couple of months and then obviously through November make that decision, and we're living in a time of transition and a time of transition for any organization and certainly a country, and in the dangerous world we're in right now, it can be a time of great vulnerability. And so I understand what the possibilities are, and as in everything we do, we try to plan no matter what's going to happen and look at a variety of options. So I can assure you that there is a lot of effort going into plan for the transition, and from the military perspective, to make it -- to have it be as solid a foundation for the transition as we possibly can because the challenges we have on the 19th of January we're going to have on the 20th of January. We're still going to be in both these wars. We're going to have challenges which abound throughout the world, actually, and what I want to do is provide the president the best advice on meeting all those challenges, whoever that might be. So I guess I want to reassure you that personally I give this an awful lot of thought and focus, but it's not just me; it's a lot of people looking at what's the best way to transition for any president, whoever that might be. I think I've got time for about 10 more questions. (Laughter.) Q: Good morning, sir. ADM. MULLEN: Good morning. Q: (Inaudible.) My question -- ADM. MULLEN: Supporting what? Q: (Inaudible.) ADM. MULLEN: Okay. Q: My question is regarding funding. We all speak very highly of the mission that AFRICOM has and we all know there's very much the United States can do to help Africa and engage Africa, but it's going to take an awful lot of money. In these challenging economic times, what are you advising the president and the Congress on funding to stand up Africa, AFRICOM, and to allow its mission to go forward in the full way that -- (inaudible)? ADM. MULLEN: The funding issue is a principal focus of mine and my staff, and in fact the vice chairman personally spends a lot of time on this. We are committed to making sure you have the funds you need to stand up this command. Now, you and I might differ a little bit on what that means. That's usually -- that usually is true with respect to money, but I'm sure that -- it's something General Ward and I talked about as recently as this morning. We are working hard to make sure that the command has the resources it needs. There's the money side of this; there's the people side of this, and you can't -- you just can't move forward without those two, and we understand that. And we struggled for the last year or so in many ways, particularly on the people side of this, and leadership from all the services, not just myself and General Ward, got focused on this several months ago, no kidding, the people side of this, and it has gotten dramatically better, both on the military side and the civilian side. We haven't crossed the finish line with respect to it. But I assure you I recognize you can't do your mission without those resources, and I'm comfortable that we are providing the resources that you need to get there. In one of the conversations I've just had with General Ward -- he has got to stay on me about this if it looks like those are slipping. They're there now; I know this; I've seen it across all the services and certainly across the OSC staff and my staff, very visibly in recent months to make sure that we've got it in place. And so I would expect it to continue to be in place in that regard. And I've asked him, I said, if it slips he's got to tell me. Q: Sir, Lieutenant Commander David Johnson. I'm a PACOM reservist working for the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency in the Intelligence and Knowledge Directorate, supporting the entire command. The reason for the long introduction is my question is, is there much discussion in PACOM about building the kind of component units that Africa needs? We look at the Ukrainian army, for example, and they actually have disaster response battalions. We realize that we're taking soldiers and asking them to put down their rifles and pick up shovels, become mayors of small towns in Iraq -- trying to integrate all these different agencies, but the question is are the services actually seriously looking at building units that in fact can lead the mission that we've identified? ADM. MULLEN: I think the short answer is yes. Would I say that we are cleanly building units that are just going to do this? Probably not as clean as your question might suggest. But all the services -- and I'll lead with the Army, in just a recent change to the Army doctrine, which essentially puts in civilian reconstruction, which will drive requirements to meet those needs. The exact details of how we're going to do that -- is it going to be through units or is it going to be through this requirement across the unit that does multiple things? I don't have the answer to that. But everybody, all the services, recognize that this is going to be an enduring requirement. And in fact it will be rifles and shovels for the future, and I don't see that going away. There is the view that some of this should be done by other agencies in our government. The fact of the matter is the capacity just isn't there, so for the next -- and the personnel system isn't there -- the things I talked about earlier -- so for the next 10 to 20 years, the way I look at it, the military is going to be doing this to some degree, depending on what you're talking about. And what's instructive to me about your question is -- you asked about the Ukraine, for example -- is you look where we are and then you take militaries in countries around the world who haven't made this change, or who haven't adjusted to this requirement and it's going to be a considerable -- it has been for us, it will be for them -- to say, no, this isn't what you need to do; you need to do this, and that's going to take some staying power to stay with them to evolve what their capability will need to be with respect to that as well, though I've talked to leaders from many, many countries -- military leaders from many, many countries -- who are very much aware that peacekeeping operations, stability operations are what they can do, and they're trying to change their military to support it. Okay? Okay, again, I'm excited about what you're doing. I greatly appreciate it. I really do mean that. This is a huge new mission for us by way -- in terms of focusing on a continent that we need to focus on in ways that we haven't done it in the past. I just think -- it's critical and getting it right is up to all of us, but we are relying heavily on you and I'm grateful for your being here to do that, for making a difference in a part of the world where you could really change outcomes and lives, provide the kind of advice, support, create relationships and partnerships which will make the world a better place, and do it in a way that creates opportunities for people that have not existed in the past. Of all the commands we have in our government right now and serving our military, I am most excited about the opportunities that are here. So I wish you the best. I thank you for what you're doing and I look forward to continue to work with you. I also have -- I see Major Yoder (sp), who's got nothing but coins for anybody that wants them. So I'll stand here and pass them out, and I can do this pretty rapidly if you want a coin, or if that's the only reason you came -- (laughter, applause). (END)