U.S. National Security Strategy

ADM. MULLEN: Thank you. Thank you very much for this opportunity and thanks to all of you for being here today. I'm actually glad we're -- I've been able to coordinate our schedules and get together. I think it's a really important venue and that all of you are vital to keeping audiences around the world informed and educated on what's going on. So I really do appreciate the opportunity.

I would like to start off by offering my condolences to the people of Bangladesh who are suffering significant loss of life and property in the wake of the cyclone, Sidr. As some of you may have read, the U.S. -- the United States military is assisting with some medical teams on the ground and is ready to assist further with a couple of Navy ships should they be required. They're headed in that direction. And actually, this tragic event illustrates one of the reasons I wanted so much to be with -- here with you today, and it is to talk a little bit about the very uncertain world in which we live and how important it is to try to work together with other nations, partners, agencies, NGOs and try to reduce some of that uncertainty.

So what I thought I'd do, rather than focus on any one area or issue, is talk a little bit about a larger notion of how I see the world from a national security perspective right now, and I'd like to leave you with three main thoughts.

First, I think General George Casey, who's the Army chief of staff here in the United States, had it right when he said, "We are in an era of persistent conflict." But I'd add to that, that it's also an era of persistent engagement, and I think we have to recognize both because while this long war against extremists is generational and will take many, many years, we also need to recognize opportunities to engage other partners, militaries and other interagencies from around the world. We must be able to get at the root causes of terrorism and try to mitigate them.

I've talked to a lot of our operational commanders in Iraq recently, and they will tell you they're learning more about civic projects, electrical power, water and sewage treatment systems, schools and hospitals than they ever dreamed of, and they're seeing terrific success in that regard. It's a real testament to our troops and to the counterinsurgency strategy and the additional resources provided by the surge, but it's also a testament to partnership and engagement with local leaders. The work we're doing in the Horn of Africa is also a great example or the recent humanitarian missions of our hospital ships, Mercy and Comfort. It's really from a macro perspective what AFRICOM will be all about.

If we've learned nothing since 9/11 it's that no one can do it alone anymore. We need partners. So many of our problems are transnational and affect all of us. I was in Brussels last week back in NATO to meet with the CHODs (Chiefs of Defense) from the NATO countries, and NATO -- and the countries in the alliance continue to work their way through resourcing and challenges and in particular are very focused in supporting the ISAF forces, which NATO is in charge of, in Afghanistan.

That brings me to my second point, which is I believe we all must take a longer and larger view of the world. We got to -- we must think strategically. And I'm concerned that in some cases we have left strategic deterrence behind when we left the Cold War behind, and the work of deterrence right now is every bit as vital as it was then, and in fact, probably more challenging because of some of the threats.

And I'm concerned that while there certainly needs to be focus on the here and now, but it's not the only areas we should focus on. And it's incumbent upon all of us who lead to get above it, to get above the here and now and look to the future.

The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan weigh heavily on the minds of the American people, as they do on mine, but we must not be myopic in our view. There's more to the Middle East than those two countries, and there's more to the world than the Middle East. And that's one of the reasons I set as my top priority to develop -- tied to our vital national interests here in the United States -- to develop a military strategy which is focused on improving stability in the Middle East.

Consider the situation in Pakistan today. Pakistan's been a strong ally, and we wish to see these emergency measures end soon. As I told reporters last week, the situation is stable from a military perspective, but we are watchful, as we must be, because the stakes are very high and the security there affects regional security, and regional security affects global security.

And it's also why I've been very clear that the actions by Iran are such a concern. Their actions and rhetoric have been destabilizing not only in Iraq but in the region, and I think we'd all like to see Iran take a constructive and responsible role. It is too soon to tell if they are in fact living up to their pledge to do so.

Finally, we really need to take a close look at global strategic risk. As I wrote in my guidance as I assumed this job, we must be ready for who and for what comes after Iraq and Afghanistan. With everything going on all over the world, what missions should our military be prepared to undertake and where? How do we retain all the great combat experience we are gaining on the ground without losing our need to be ready for conventional warfare as well? How do we keep the strategic and operational reserve power of our Guard and Reserves?

And what are we doing to make sure we can defend vital national interests in the Asia-Pacific region? I was just in Korea and Japan a couple weeks ago. Significant security concerns persist there, with the threat of ballistic missiles from North Korea and the tension over the Taiwan Strait.

Peaceful -- a peaceful, productive rise of China would be a good thing for everyone. How do we help ensure that outcome and improve the military-to-military relationships we have?

We look pretty regularly east and west, as a country. We need to make sure that we're also looking north and south. Admiral Jim Stavridis, who's our commander down in the Southern Command, has the right idea: engagement and dialogue. We must tap into that approach. We must realize and preserve our strength in the U.S. military while understanding and improving the things in which we are not quite as strong: cultural awareness, language proficiency, civil affairs. It's really -- it really is the world we're living in.

Thanks, and over to you for questions.

MODERATOR: Please wait for the microphone. It may take a moment because we have so many in the house. And please state your name and publication before we answer your question.

QUESTION: (Off mike.)

ADM. MULLEN: Sure. Ma'am? Second row.

QUESTION: Thanks, Admiral. My name is Nadia Charters-Bilbassy, with Al-Arabiya Television. Can you elaborate on the level of violence in Iraq that we have seen recently? It has been decreased.

ADM. MULLEN: Right.

QUESTION: Are you able break it down into figures or factors, whether it purely was the surge, or is it because of the role of the sheikh -- the Sunni sheikhs in Anbar, actually, or is it because of al Qaeda is on the retreat in Iraq? Or could it be the three factors together?

ADM. MULLEN: Actually, I think there are a number of factors which have risen since the surge to cumulatively result in the reduction of violence in Iraq. And you mentioned those three things. Clearly security is much better, and -- but it isn't just having the extra troops. It's how they're being employed. And that strategy has worked up to this point in time, very effectively. And it has a lot to do with being out in the villages and towns, and out and about, where the Iraqi citizens live.

There's still significant challenge. There's -- Baghdad is still a very violent city. There are clearly reductions in places all over the country -- the Anbar Awakening, the leadership of the Sunni sheikhs and the courage that they've shown to lead, and in great part turn against al Qaeda, and in fact send a message to some of the Shi'a sheikhs, who are also doing the same kind of thing.

One of the unexpected outcomes that's had a big impact on security has been this group of some 70,000 concerned local citizens, who have taken back -- and I was there in early October and experienced some of this, but they've taken back their towns and their villages and their areas. And they are in fact strongly resistant to al Qaeda and in fact some of the sectarian violence that was going on before.

So I really think, more than anything else -- and all of the indicators, from a security standpoint, with respect to violence, are headed in the right direction. We've had a significant impact on al Qaeda.

In addition to the other things that are going on, there's local. There's provincial reconciliation to some degree going on. We think that's an important thing. That's building.

So I think more than anything else, it's the cumulative effect. And yet there are still significant challenges there. And in that regard, we must remain vigilant and strong with respect to our security.

QUESTION: Demetri Sevastopulo, Financial Times, UK. Admiral, some of the numbers on the violence have been quite striking, and people may have not predicted them six months ago. How are you going to maintain those numbers and get further decreases while you reduce the number of U.S. forces in Iraq? And as the surge unwinds, how worried are you that the surge unwinding is going to then allow the violence to increase again?

ADM. MULLEN: Well, the -- it is again -- if it were strictly the impact of the number of Soldiers that -- terrific Soldiers who've made such a difference that we've had on the ground there, I think that question -- that would bring into question a little more -- that question a little more focus. But again it's been this cumulative piece, because security has gotten so much better. There are other factors here, which is impacting now and, we believe, will impact in the future on sustaining that security.

I don't -- I'm at the strategic level. I try and let General Petraeus figure out the tactical kinds of things. He's clearly responsible for that. He's done -- he and his -- and the Soldiers who are over there now have just done an extraordinary job.

But it's too soon to tell, to be predictive quite frankly at this point. We certainly are watching all the trends. They're all headed in the right directions. There have been things happen that we didn't expect, which have been supportive.

We still need to -- there's been economic development, which is an important piece of this. I talked about provincial reconciliation. There still needs to be steps taken at the national level, during this window of opportunity that we have right now, because of this security.

And I don't like to get into predictions, because it can be very difficult to do so. But right now, as you probably know, the first of those five surge brigades are starting to come out. I looked. I haven't seen anything from General Petraeus or Admiral Fallon to indicate that we can't continue on the track we're on right now.

QUESTION: Sorry, I've been asked to introduce myself. I've been ordered. (Laughter, cross talk.)

ADM. MULLEN: Okay.

QUESTION: (Name and affiliation inaudible.)

ADM. MULLEN: Okay, I'll go over here. Sorry. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: My name is Andrey Surzhansky. I'm with ITAR-TASS news agency of Russia. I appreciate your time. My question is on the missile defense. Russian officials have complained that Washington is not responding to the repeated requests for detail and, what's more important, written proposals on missile defense, along the lines what's been said by Secretary Gates and Secretary Rice in Moscow recently. My question for you: Can they expect those proposals in writing and before your Russian counterpart, General Baluyevsky, comes here next month? And is there any progress in your discussions with your Russian counterparts on this subject?

Thank you.

ADM. MULLEN: I, actually, met briefly with General Baluyevsky last week in NATO; I really just introduced myself. And in fact, we talked briefly about his visit here, but we didn't really go into any significant detailed discussion. And I certainly look forward to that when he arrives here in a couple weeks.

Whether there has been a request for that kind of information that you describe from the Russian leadership, I'm just not sure. I haven't seen that so I really can't speak to that. I do know, however, that Secretary Gates and Secretary Rice have engaged in significant discussions to lay out what the proposals are as well as to address the concerns on the part of the Russian leadership, and it's not something I personally have spent a lot of time on -- time in. I would say from a requirement standpoint, certainly as the threat grows over time, that missile defense in Europe and missile defense in that part of the world and I think missile defense globally will be a growing concern that responsible nations are all going to have to address.

QUESTION: Andrew Gray from Reuters. Admiral, you talked about security trends and Iraq heading in the right direction. In Afghanistan they seem to be heading in the wrong direction -- you've got higher numbers of IED attacks, according to U.N. figure; NATO and the U.S. forces have killed as many civilians if not more than the Taliban through July of this year; support for the Afghan government and for the coalition is declining in Afghanistan. When that happened, when those trends went in the wrong direction in Iraq, you had a comprehensive review, strategy was changed, more troops were sent. Is any of those going to happen with Afghanistan?

ADM. MULLEN: Certainly those concerns that you raise are significant concerns, and you talked about specifically -- one of the areas you talked about, I think, Andrew, were the civilian casualties through midyear. And one of the areas we looked at very carefully at that time was clearly that, and there's been great focus on that. And that trend, while not -- and sorry -- and that outcome, while not perfect since that time, is greatly reduced. But it is an area that we are very focused on. You can't -- I don't think in the long run you can achieve success clearly with those kinds of casualties occurring.

The trends in Afghanistan, from my perspective, are mixed. I was there in October -- I'm sorry. Yeah, I was there in October -- and I think we've talked about this briefly before -- I was actually taken back that it was in better shape than I had anticipated personally, that -- and against my baseline.

Clearly we -- there are opportunities for additional forces. One of the things that Secretary Gates addressed in his trip to Noordwijk at a NATO ministerial meeting about three weeks ago and I addressed last week is the need for all the countries to come force and meet the commitments, because that can have a significant impact on the security. Not unlike Iraq, it's security, it's the economy, and it's also political reconciliation.

I actually was fairly pleased to read about a survey -- survey results from the Afghan people who actually -- that have been published in the last few days, that see the trends about how they see their government in a positive way.

So -- and we always -- certainly, I wouldn't wait for a catastrophic event, but we always are looking at the strategy to see if we have it right. And in this case, it's not just us, but clearly our NATO partners. And the NATO piece here is significant. NATO has committed to getting this right for their future. I know, having just been there last week, NATO still is. But that doesn't mean that as we see violence trend in the wrong direction, that we wouldn't work in a direction of reassessment. We're just not there right now.

QUESTION: So you feel you have it right; overall, the approach is correct as things stand?

ADM. MULLEN: Well, all these -- you know, the word "right" and "wrong" are pretty edgy words. I wouldn't necessarily choose that word. But right now I think we're okay. Clearly, we're going to -- the commitment and the need to continue to engage in Afghanistan is going to be there for a long time.

I see there is a question from New York. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Lalit Jha, New Delhi TV and Pajhwok wire service from Afghanistan. My first question is, in the last couple of years there has been an increasing relationship between India and U.S. in military and other relations. Where do you see India from a strategic point of view in Asia? And second question is, the developments in Pakistan, how is it affecting relations with Afghanistan?

ADM. MULLEN: The first question, as far as India -- and I visited India earlier this year -- I think there's a very positive and growing relationship between the two countries, and I think that's a very good thing. India is providing not just for its own people a growing economic engine -- which, again, I think is good not just locally but also globally, and making sure, in this world we're living in, we're very well connected and understand each other with respect to that is also important.

We are in a position where we've had in recent years an increased number of military-to-military contacts, and I think that's positive. So I'm actually very positive about the continuing and emerging relationship between the United States and India, and actually also saw that in the region. And your second question was? Sorry.

QUESTION: How do you see the developments in Pakistan are affecting your mission in Afghanistan?

ADM. MULLEN: From a -- if you're talking about specifically the developments since President Musharraf declared the emergency?

QUESTION: Yes.

ADM. MULLEN: From a military standpoint, I haven't seen a significant effect. We still have our military-to-military contacts. I've been asked about -- previously about security of the nuclear weapons. I see no indication that that's a problem. We continue the contacts, and so from that standpoint, the logistic support in terms of what goes through Pakistan to support our efforts in Afghanistan, we have seen no interruptions there, as well.

So from that standpoint, I just -- we just haven't seen much.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Ron Baygents with Kuwait News Agency. I just would like you to make a few remarks about the role of the U.S.- Kuwaiti relationship in the years going forward, how important it will be, will it continue to be. Will the U.S. presence diminish or grow there?

ADM. MULLEN: I can't speak to whether the presence is going to get smaller or bigger. I'd -- but I would speak to the importance of what is -- what has been for the last decade and a half, if not more, and what will continue to be an incredibly strong relationship between the two countries, and to extend that, both from a -- from the Kuwait standpoint, to many of our friends in that part of the world. Part of the very important strategic impact we need to have is to reassure our friends in that part of the world, in a part of the world that's got clearly two wars going on, and a lot of people are very concerned about that.

But from the standpoint of the -- Kuwait has been an enormously important ally in our efforts in that part of the world and will continue to be in the future.

QUESTION: Hanno Settele, Austrian Radio and Television. I have a question similar to the one of the person before me. Central Europe, Western Europe is not really the hot spot anymore in worldwide conflicts. Are there any plans from you, as a strategic person, to reduce or change American presence in Central or Western Europe?

ADM. MULLEN: We've made decisions in the last several years, in terms of footprints change in particular, significantly reduction our -- a significant reduction in our ground forces who will be stationed in Europe. We actually are in a position where we're reviewing whether that previous decision should be revisited. And so -- and it's a very complex problem because there are laws in our country which are -- have been passed tied to relocation of forces. But the Secretary of Defense is -- Secretary Gates is committed to reviewing that. I don't know about the outcome of that. We've actually made some decisions to delay some of those troops coming back.

At a higher level, I think, in places like Europe, places like Korea, that continuous engagement and the relationship-building that goes on when you have American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines living in countries as we do is a great strength of relationships and understanding each other, and also a significant commitment on the part of the host country, as well as the United States of America.

QUESTION: So no further reductions?

ADM. MULLEN: I didn't say. I -- there's been no decision with respect to that. Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: Thanks. Denis Arslan, with Turkey's Anatolian News Agency. Could you talk about the cooperation level between the U.S. and Turkey against PKK? And I believe Vice Chairman Cartwright and General Petraeus were in Turkey this morning. Do you still see a risk of cross-border operation into Iraq by Turkey?

ADM. MULLEN: I think the relationship is a vital one. It's long-standing. From -- the military-to-military relationship between Turkey and the United States has been strong for a long time and needs to continue to be in the future.

There is -- there wasn't -- there either is or there was a meeting. I'm not exactly sure of the time. In addition to General Cartwright and General Petraeus, General Saygun is there. And also of significant importance is General Craddock has a representative there which, I think, is important. I know, based on Prime Minister Erdogan's meeting with President Bush, that this was one of the results of that meeting, and I think it's very positive. And clearly what the United States wants to do is provide support.

I think there is -- we need to all be mindful of the strategic objectives here and make sure that whatever we do fulfills those strategic objectives. At the same time, we know that the PKK is a declared terrorist organization. It is -- they are operating in Iraq, and we do not support that organization or what they do.

QUESTION: Tammam Mocram, Al-Barazi - Al-Watan Al-Arabi, France. You said about Iran that -- you cast some doubt about its constructive behavior. But on the other hand, the U.S. official, political official, always say, and they repeat, that they -- the military option is on the table. How can you launch an attack on Iran when you are involved in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Secondly a footnote: After two months, three months of the attack in Syria --

ADM. MULLEN: One question, one question. (Cross talk, laughter.)

QUESTION: After three months of the strike against so-called the nuclear facilities in Syria, are you as military well-informed of the Israeli strike or not?

ADM. MULLEN: Are you sure you want that to be your one question? (Cross talk.)

No, actually, we have -- I will, as we continue to refer those questions to the Israelis. But I won't not answer your first question.

(Audio break) -- never take the military option off the table.

I have said, and I've said repeatedly and I'll repeat it, I think the diplomacy is really important. There are clearly publicly sanctions which are in place that we need to, I think, maximize to have the kind of effect.

I worry about Iran because of the rhetoric, because of the development in the nuclear world, because of the support for the insurgents in Iraq, which -- and there's been a reduction of violence, and I think it's too soon to know how much of that we should attribute to the fact that the Iranians are no longer supporting these high-tech weapons going into Iraq.

So from that standpoint, I think the diplomatic engagement is really important. I am hopeful that talks will resume with them. At the same time, I'd never take the military operation off the table. Having the military option on the table doesn't mean it's going to get used, but it certainly is intended to ensure that there's no miscommunication or miscalculation; that the potential is there and the resolve is there, though it is restrained at this point.

Oh, I'm sorry. Let me go to New York.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. This is Mauricio Molinari from the Italian news daily, La Stampa. Considering the improving of the situation in Iraq, what do you believe that the European allies can do to help this trend? The French foreign minister just said two days ago that they really want to help. And Italy has a police training mission in Baghdad. What Europe can do to consolidate this moment?

ADM. MULLEN: I think -- I'm not -- I think we need to take advantage of this -- all of us need to take advantage of this window of opportunity. And you mentioned the training mission for the Iraqi security forces. The continued training mission for the Iraqi police is another one.

I spoke earlier about the ability to have an impact economically. And so investment in Iraq is very important. In the end, an awful lot of this has to do with, I think, jobs, and so the economic piece of this is very important as well.

And clearly, the ability to impact on the -- continue to impact and engage in the political reconciliation process in full recognition this is a sovereign country working its way through a very difficult transition.

And what I said in my opening remarks still applies. Nobody can do this alone anymore. We need partners to do that, and we need more and more partners to do that. I wouldn't get into the construct of how that would occur, but those are some thoughts with respect to answering that question.

QUESTION: My name is Toshio Umehara. I'm from the Asahi Shimbun. How concerned are you about the Chinese anti-satellite missile testing earlier this year, and especially in regard to the fact that it may reduce the effectiveness of the U.S. missile defense shield? Are you willing to communicate and cooperate -- a similar offer of cooperation with the Russians, with the Chinese, about over the missile defense?

ADM. MULLEN: Part of my communications actually had to do with -- have to do with my actions, and I was in Beijing August and I discussed many issues with the Chinese leadership, and this was one of them. This was certainly -- and it's been expressed more than once by United States leadership, and leaders in other parts of the world, I believe -- about the significance of this test.

And it speaks to a higher-level concern that many of us in the United States have about, what is the strategic intent of the investment, the high-tech investment that the Chinese government is making with respect to its military capability in the future? And that test is a great example of creating a question that hasn't been answered yet.

QUESTION: Constance Ikokwu, This Day, Nigeria. My question is you mentioned international terrorism, would you say that the Nigerian government is an ally of the U.S. in terms of fighting Islamic fundamentalism in the northern part of that country, where we have a lot of Muslims? And the Nigerian government has expressed concern concerning the establishment of AFRICOM, but the U.S. government is clearly going ahead with it.

How -- don't you think that that sort of causes a problem for you? Instead of winning support, you're actually going to be having conflict in Sub-Saharan African region. Thank you.

ADM. MULLEN: I think -- I met actually with my counterpart from Nigeria a few weeks ago, shortly after I took -- I think it was just before I took this job or just after. And the impact or the importance of together engaging in counterterrorism, particularly in Northern Africa, is very important. And I appreciate the support that has been a part of this overall engagement in that part of the world, and particularly in Nigeria.

Secondly I actually equate the standup of AFRICOM as in important step to continue that engagement. Two jobs ago, I lived in Italy. And my portfolio in the Navy at that time was to engage in the Gulf of Guinea, and that included Nigeria. And it is the engagement piece that I think's important, and to do it in ways where -- that are supportive of each other. And that's really where AFRICOM is coming from.

The discussion about AFRICOM oftentimes, and I think too often, gets into, well, where is the headquarters going to be; where is the footprint going to be? To me, at this point, those -- it's not -- we've made no decisions with respect to that. And it's -- that's not an important decision, because we don't know that answer of that.

Right now, it's headquartered in Europe. And as we stand this up, that's fine. My view is that it is more important that we engage and do it in a way to assist where asked, and to invest where asked, to get at this long-term problem, the long-term problems, one of which is the counterterrorism challenge that we have together.

And next to you, I said.

STAFF: We have time for two more.

ADM. MULLEN: Okay.

QUESTION: Manelisi Dubase from the South African Broadcasting Corporation. You said that the situation in Pakistan militarily is stable. That's what you implied. What if, looking at the worst scenario, whereby those weapons of mass destruction there fell into the wrong hands? Does the U.S. have any options?

ADM. MULLEN: I don't -- I try not to spend much time speculating on "what if." But I -- certainly part of the understanding of where we are with respect to those weapons is ensuring that they are secure, and being mindful and watchful of that.

On a larger scale, or at a higher level, one of the challenges that we have globally is to control weapons of mass destruction, and that we all need to work together to do that. And I think that's a -- that will continue to be a huge challenge.

So to have a weapon -- a nuclear weapon that would be in the hands of a terrorist anywhere in the world would be a huge, huge challenge for all of us. And certainly the potential there is absolutely devastating.

Yes, ma'am? I've got time for a couple more questions.

QUESTION: Hello. My name is Kim Landers, from Australian Broadcasting. Australia faces an election this weekend, and the Labor opposition, which currently leads in the polls, says that it favors a negotiated staged withdrawal of Australia's combat forces from Iraq. What effect would that have on U.S.-led operations? And would you prefer that it did not happen?

ADM. MULLEN: Australia's been a strong partner in Iraq and in Afghanistan. And as I said earlier, we need those kinds of partnerships. And we need it from a security standpoint there, and we're going to need it in the future.

That said, it's really up to the Australian people and the Australian government to make this decision, not unlike Afghanistan, where I talked about the commitment on the part of forces from the NATO countries and needing to meet those commitments. Clearly, as Australia has, making a commitment, and then stayed with it, has been really vital in terms of our ability to provide the kind of security that we need to.

Yeah?

QUESTION: Hasan Hazar, Turkiye Daily. As well do you think that there will be a new NATO mission like Afghanistan in Iraq in the near future?

ADM. MULLEN: I've heard nothing about any NATO mission in Iraq.

Last question.

QUESTION: Eyrim Bunn, VOA Turkish Service. Today, the energy ministers of Iran and Turkey have just signed a new deal about energy, I guess. Do you think that's a mistake on Turkey's side? And do you think that's a strategic risk to U.S. national interests?

ADM. MULLEN: I really wouldn't comment on that agreement. And again sovereign nations get to make agreements with who they decide to make agreements with. So more than anything else, I'd just leave it at that.

Thank you very much.

MODERATOR: Thank you, sir.