An interview with Michael G. Mullen

Joint Force Quarterly, July, 2009

Admiral Mullen: Let me start by saying that I believe that it is good to speak out. It is essential for us as leaders that our people feel free to speak out on these matters--and they do, trust me. Many of our people out there have seen combat and been deployed two, three, even four and five times. They have earned the right to express their opinions. In fact, senior officers need to spend even more time listening to them and considering what they have to say.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

When I put on my first star, I received a congratulations letter telling me that I would now "always eat well and never hear the truth again." So I travel--I like to travel a lot--because it is really the only way I have found to really get to the truth: by talking to the folks downrange.

That said, I don't think we need changes with respect to command relationships. And I am not aware of Active-duty senior leaders acting in defiance. As I have said before, we in the military execute policy. We should continue to do so and to better understand our place in the process. Goldwater-Nichols established healthy command relationships, and it's working the way that it should.

I do think that we need something like a Goldwater-Nichols for the interagency. I am not convinced that we have it right yet for all instruments of our national power as far as integration and coordination across the board. I believe the President's new Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy really gets to the issue with respect to a greater emphasis on civilian capacity.

We can't succeed without generating civilian capacity in Afghanistan, so the President's regional strategy is certainly a step in the right direction. And it is not going to happen overnight. Other departments in the interagency haven't had the recruitment, haven't offered the enablers and benefits like we have for the military, such as indigenous health care or an appropriate level of life insurance. What we need--and I'll use Afghanistan as an example--is an "Expeditionary Workforce" in our government. As a government, we need to figure out how to resource and sustain these efforts because balance between civilian and military efforts is so critically important.

JFQ: The New York Times recently drew attention to the seemingly conflicted roles among former general and flag officers of, on the one hand, being strategic analysts on television and, on the other hand, being on boards of directors or otherwise representing defense contractors. Are you troubled by the apparent conflicts of interest involved in some of the activities of former generals and admirals? If so, what should be done about it?

Admiral Mullen: I am not going to get into any specific allegation of conflict of interest. I will say this, though--which I have said many times--about the role taken in public discourse by some retired officers. One, they have the right to speak out. We should respect the fact that as retired officers, they are free to express their opinions. And two, I worry a great deal about the level of currency they have in operations they speak to. I remain concerned about the degree to which the American people confuse Active-duty representatives and retired or veteran representatives.