News Links:
Gates Warns of Prolonged Commitment in Afghanistan - Washington Post
Gates: US Lacks Strategic Plan to Win in Afghanistan - Baltimore Sun
Gates: Modest Goals, More Strikes - New York Times
Gates Says US Must Set Realistic Goals in Afghanistan - Los Angeles Times
Gates Says Afghan Terror Fight Trumps Nation-Building - Bloomberg
Afghanistan is 'Greatest Challenge - Financial Times
Afghanistan is Top US Priority: Pentagon Chief - Agence France Presse
Gates Expects More Troops in Afghanistan - Associated Press
Military Ready to Send More Troops to Afghanistan, Gates Says - AFPS
Pentagon Sees Limit on US Troops in Afghanistan - Reuters
Gates Says More Troops for Afghanistan by Summer - Associated Press
Gates Says Missile Attacks in Pakistan Will Continue - CNN
Iran Playing "Subversive" Latin America Role - Reuters
US Moves to Counter Chinese Military Modernization - Voice of America
Gates on How to Institutionalize Counterinsurgency - Washington Independent
Procurement Reform Must be Government Priority, Gates Tells Senate - AFPS
Gates: Cash Cows of War Running Dry - Wired
Here are several excerpts from the opening remarks by Secretary Gates.
Afghanistan and Pakistan
There is little doubt that our greatest military challenge right now is Afghanistan. As you know, the United States has focused more on Central Asia in recent months. President Obama has made it clear that the Afghanistan theater should be our top overseas military priority. The ideology we face was incubated there when Afghanistan became a failed state, and the extremists have largely returned their attention to that region in the wake of their reversals in Iraq. As we have seen from attacks across the globe -- on 9/11 and afterwards -- the danger reaches far beyond the borders of Afghanistan or Pakistan.
There are more than forty nations, hundreds of NGOs, universities, development banks, the United Nations, the European Union, NATO, and more, involved in Afghanistan -- all working to help a nation beset by crushing poverty, a thriving drug trade fueling corruption, a ruthless and resilient insurgency, and violent extremists of many stripes, not the least of which is Al Qaeda. Coordination of these international efforts has been less than stellar, and too often the whole of these activities has added up to less than the sum of the parts -- a concern I'm sure many of you share.
Based on our past experience in Afghanistan -- and applicable lessons from Iraq -- there are assessments underway that should provide an integrated way forward to achieve our goals.
As in Iraq, there is no purely military solution in Afghanistan. But it is also clear that we have not had enough troops to provide a baseline level of security in some of the most dangerous areas -- a vacuum that increasingly has been filled by the Taliban. That is why the U.S. is considering an increase in our military presence, in conjunction with a dramatic increase in the size of the Afghan security forces. Because of the multi-faceted nature of the fight -- and because of persistent ISAF shortfalls for training teams -- all combat forces, whether international or American, will have a high level of counterinsurgency training, which was not always the case.
In the coming year, I also expect to see more coherence as efforts to improve civil-military coordination gain traction -- allowing us to coordinate Provincial Reconstruction Teams in a more holistic fashion, both locally and regionally. And there will be an increased focus on efforts at the district level, where the impact of both our military and rebuilding efforts will be felt more concretely by the Afghan people, who will ultimately be responsible for the future of their nation.
While this will undoubtedly be a long and difficult fight, we can attain what I believe should be among our strategic objectives: an Afghan people who do not provide a safe haven for Al Qaeda, reject the rule of the Taliban, and support the legitimate government that they elected and in which they have a stake.
Of course, it is impossible to disaggregate Afghanistan and Pakistan, given the porous border between them. I do believe that the Pakistani government is aware of the existential nature of the threat emanating from the FATA. The U.S. military knows firsthand how difficult it is to wage counterinsurgency with a force designed for large-scale, mechanized warfare -- a fact complicated by Pakistan's recent tensions with India. Pakistan is a friend and partner, and it is necessary for us to stay engaged -- and help wherever we can. I can assure you that I am watching Pakistan closely, and that we are working with State, Treasury, and all parts of the government to fashion a comprehensive approach to the challenges there.
Iraq after SOFA
As you know, the Status of Forces agreement between the U.S. and Iraq went into effect on January 1st. The agreement calls for U.S. combat troops to be out of Iraqi cities by the end of June, and all troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011, at the latest. It balances the interests of both countries as we see the emergence of a sovereign Iraq in full control of its territory. Provincial elections in just a few days are another sign of progress.
The SOFA marks an important step forward in the orderly drawdown of the American presence. It is a watershed -- a firm indication that American military involvement is winding down. Even so, I would offer a few words of caution. Though violence has remained low, there is still the potential for setbacks -- and there may be hard days ahead for our troops.
As our military presence decreases over time, we should still expect to be involved in Iraq on some level for many years to come -- assuming a sovereign Iraq continues to seek our partnership. The stability of Iraq remains critical to the future of the Middle East, a region that multiple presidents of both political parties have considered vital to the national security of the United States.
North Korea, Iran, and Proliferation
Beyond these operations, one of the greatest dangers we continue to face is the toxic mix of rogue nations, terrorist groups, and nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. North Korea and Iran present uniquely vexing challenges in this regard. North Korea has produced enough plutonium for several atomic bombs; Iran is developing the capabilities needed to support a nuclear weapons program. North Korea's conventional capability continues to degrade as it becomes more antiquated and starved -- in some cases literally -- for resources and support. Both countries have ballistic missile programs of increasing range and a record of proliferation.
The regional and nuclear ambitions of Iran continue to pose enormous challenges to the U.S. Yet I believe there are non-military ways to blunt Iran's power to threaten its neighbors and sow instability throughout the Middle East. The lower price of oil deprives Iran of revenues and, in turn, makes U.N. economic sanctions bite harder. In addition, there is the growing self-sufficiency and sovereignty of Iraq, whose leaders -- including Iraqi Shia -- have shown they do not intend for the new, post-Saddam Iraq to become a satrapy of its neighbor to the east. This situation provides new opportunities for diplomatic and economic pressure to be more effective than in the past.
On North Korea, the Six-Party Talks have been critical in producing some forward momentum -- especially with respect to North Korea's plutonium production -- although I don't think anyone can claim to be completely satisfied with the results so far. These talks do offer a way to curtail and hopefully eliminate its capacity to produce more plutonium or to enrich uranium, and reduce the likelihood of proliferation. Our goal remains denuclearization, but it is still to be seen whether North Korea is —to give up its nuclear ambitions entirely.
Ground Force Expansion and Stress on the Force
In an effort to meet our nation's commitments and relieve stress on our force and their troops' families, the Department continues to expand the end-strength of the Army and Marine Corps -- growth that began in 2007 and will continue for several years.
The Army exceeded both recruiting and retention goals for FY 2008, and is on path to achieve its goal of an active duty end-strength of 547,400 by the end of this fiscal year. It will continue to increase the number of active Army Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) with a goal of moving from 40 to 42 BCTs this year and towards an end goal of 48 BCTs.
Despite having fallen 5 percent short of its retention goal, the Marine Corps is on track to meet its end-strength goal of 202,000 by the end of this fiscal year.
In all, the Army and Marine Corps are undergoing the largest increase to their active ranks in some four decades. The expectation is that, with a larger total force, individual troops and units will, over time, deploy less frequently with longer dwell times at home. The goal for the Army is two years off for every year of deployment. The expected reduction of American troops in Iraq could be offset by proposed increases in Afghanistan, so it may take some time before we reach that goal. The Services are carefully managing their growth to ensure that it is consistent with the high standards expected from an all-volunteer force.
Read the entire transcript here.