Senator Webb Warns Current Approach in Afghanistan, Iraq “Not a Workable Model” to Fight Terrorism

Also concerned U.S. aid to Pakistan may indirectly support expansion of nuclear arsenal

During a Senate Committee on Armed Services hearing today, Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) warned that the military’s current approach in Afghanistan and Iraq “is not a workable model” for combating international terrorism in the future.  Senator Webb reiterated his strategic concerns about large ground forces occupying territory, which he raised the day after 9/11 and which Defense Secretary Gates echoed in a speech at West Point on Friday.

Yesterday in an interview on Hardball, Senator Webb said that “the best way to address international terrorism is through mobility and maneuverability.” He added that major operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have diverted resources and attention from United States’ “true strategic priorities” in Northeast and Southeast Asia.

During today’s Armed Services hearing, Senator Webb also questioned whether U.S. assistance may be indirectly enabling Pakistan to develop its nuclear weapons arsenal, which has doubled in recent years to more than 100 deployed weapons according to reports.

Partial transcript of Senate Committee on Armed Services Hearing, March 1, 2011:

Testimony on U.S. Special Operations Command and U.S. Central Command in review of the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2012 and the Future Years Defense Program

Senator Webb: Not long after 9/11, a coalition of Afghani forces assisted by a handful of special operators and forward air controllers kicked out the Taliban in a matter of a few weeks.  We were the enablers, not the instruments or creators, of societal change in that evolution.

We took a different approach in Iraq.  We’re taking a different approach today in Afghanistan.  I understand what I would call the concept of negligence in the law: once you undertake a duty, if you don’t see it all the way through you are guilty of negligence.  At the same time, we need to start looking at the future in terms of how we are going to use our military.

Secretary Gates made a speech at West Point recently, indicating that this troop-heavy concept—pretty much nation building—is not a model that should be applied in the future with respect to issues of international terrorism.  At the same time, General Casey mentioned that he wouldn’t be surprised to see 100,000 Army soldiers deployed in these types of operations 10 years from now.  So I would like to hear your thoughts.  Where should we be moving in terms of the use of our ground troops in combating international terrorism? 

General James N. Mattis, USMC, Commander, U.S. Central Command:  Senator, I think as we look toward the future, I’ve been a horrible prophet; I’ve never fought anywhere I expected to in all my years.  I believe that we have to take each situation on its own, and we have to define the problem to a Jesuits’ level of acceptability.  It’s got to be defined to a point that the solution is very clear in terms of what is the strategy we must adopt, and the strategy is what are the ends and what are the means to get there.  The one caution that I would give, having studied this problem, is that we cannot marry one preclusive view of war and preclude other types and say we just won’t do that because the very nature of war is that the enemy will gravitate to our perceived weakness. So we’re going to have to have a force that has a built-in shock absorber—that basically can go anywhere and do anything—and at the same time, have a moderating impact on our own strategy so we don’t try to go anywhere and do everything.  It’s got to be vital national interest, and we’ve got to make sure we have a force that’s a general purpose force that does not allow the enemy to think that we’re leaving some form of warfare uncovered and then works against us in that direction.

Senator Webb:  I wouldn’t disagree with you on that at all.  At the same time, I can recall having written a piece the day after 9/11 dealing with international terrorism.  You build your strategy off of operational concepts and the enemy that you’re facing.  Two of the clear concepts in that piece were: (1) you have to maintain your maneuverability; and (2) when you’re fighting a mobile enemy, you are at risk whenever you occupy territory and then have to defend the territory that you’re occupying.  I think those are the decision points moving toward the future.  Admiral, do you have any thoughts on that?

Admiral Eric T. Olson, USN, Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command:  Sir, I think when the enemy is a ponderous state-sponsored, uniformed, organized fighting force, it may require a similar force to defeat it.  But I think that’s less likely in the future.  I agree with Secretary Gates on that one. We’re much more likely to see the less regular kinds of warfare—the cyber warfare, the terrorist warfare, the non-state-sponsored warfare—to which the best solution is often enabling another country’s forces to deal with it in that region and being, as you said, the supporting force not the supported force in that fight.

Senator Webb: Clearly in terms of international terrorism, the whole operational concept is to not align themselves with a state.  I would not in any way disagree with what General Mattis just said about keeping all your options on the table.  But with the variety of threats that face us right now, the type of response that we have made over the past eight or nine years is not a workable model.  It concerns me a good bit.

General, I want to ask you a question about Pakistan. I’ve raised a number of questions over the past two years about the transparency of our funding in terms of assistance to Pakistan.  Are you comfortable with the transparency of the money that’s going into Pakistan—that you know where it’s going?

General Mattis:   I am, Senator.   They don’t do it by computer, so it’s all written out by hand so we’ve tracked it right down to the end user.  I’ve got some of the most aggressive colonels and majors you can imagine in Islamabad, working under my vice admiral there, who track this, and routinely we reject requests from them for reimbursement.  So I know it’s not where they just walk in with a bill and we pay it.  Sometimes the ones we want more evidence from outweigh the numbers that we just accept, and we say, “ Yeah, we know you did these things so we’re going to pay you”—for example, fuel for our forces and that sort of thing that comes in.   So yes, I think we do have a very good feel for whether or not we’re reimbursing real costs versus any fraudulent costs.

Senator Webb: We’ve seen news reports that Pakistan has doubled its nuclear arsenal in recent years as we’ve been providing assistance in other areas.  Do you have any worries that our assistance to Pakistan has allowed them to fund programs such as their nuclear program? 

General Mattis:  I’m confident there is no direct funding going to their nuclear program because of my confidence in tracking the costs we are reimbursing them for now.  Obviously they have their own funding and whether or not they would spend some of that elsewhere if we weren’t reimbursing--

Senator Webb:  I understand that direct money would not be going over there.  The concern that I have is that if we are funding programs that they otherwise would be funding and they are able to take that money in order to increase their nuclear arsenal, it’s not a healthy situation for the region and for us in my view.