Submitted testimony to the House Armed Services Committee

US Department of Defense Speeches, April 15, 2008 by Robert M. Gates

As Submitted by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, 2118 Rayburn Office Building, Washington, D.C., Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Hunter, members of the committee.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear with Secretary Rice this morning.

The subject being discussed and debated at this hearing goes to the heart of the challenge facing our national security apparatus--how we can improve and integrate America's instruments of national power to reflect the new realities and requirements of this century. For years to come, America will be grappling with a range of challenges to the international system and to our own security--from global terrorism to ethnic conflicts, to rogue nations and rising powers. These challenges are by their nature long-term, requiring patience and persistence across multiple administrations. Most will emerge from within countries with which we are net at war. They cannot be overcome by military means alone, and they extend well beyond the traditional domain of any single government agency or department. They will require our government to operate with unprecedented unity, agility, and creativity. And as I have said before, they will require devoting considerably more resources to non- military instruments of national power, which will need to be rebuilt, modernized, and committed to the fight.

Over the last 15 years, the U.S. government has tried to meet post-Cold War challenges and pursue 21st century objectives with processes and organizations designed in the wake of the Second World War. The National Security Act that created most of the current interagency structure was passed in 1947. The last major legislation structuring how America dispenses foreign assistance was signed by President Kennedy. Operating within this outdated bureaucratic superstructure, the U.S. government has sought to improve interagency planning and cooperation through a variety of means: new legislation, directives, offices, coordinators, "tsars," authorities, and initiatives with varying degrees of success,

I have addressed these issues both in speeches at Kansas State and more recently at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and have discussed them in meetings with members of Congress. I'm encouraged that a consensus appears to be building that we need to rethink the fundamental structure and processes of our national security system. Towards that end. and due to the initiative of the Congress, the Department recently awarded a contract to an independent, nonprofit group to produce a study that will consider how we might re-craft the National Security Act of 1947 for the 21st century. I look forward to seeing the result, which perhaps will form the basis of debate and even legislation in the next administration.

Though recent efforts at modernizing the current system have faced obstacles when it comes to funding and implementation, some real progress has been made. One of the most important and promising developments of recent years is the main subject of today's hearing- -the U.S. government's ability to build the security capacity of partner nations.

In summary, the Global Train-and-Equip program known as Section 1206--provides commanders a means to fill longstanding gaps in an effort to help other nations build and sustain capable military forces. It allows Defense and State to act in months, rather than years. The program focuses on places where we are not at war, but where there are both emerging threats and opportunities. It decreases the likelihood that troops will be used in the future. Combatant commanders consider this a vital tool in the war on terror beyond Afghanistan and Iraq. It has become a model of interagency cooperation between State and Defense--both in the field and in Washington, D.C., as I hope will be displayed here today.

Some have asked why this requirement should not be funded and executed by the State Department. Or that the issue is a matter of increasing State's manning and funding to the point where it could take over this responsibility. In my view, building partner capacity is a vital and enduring military requirement--irrespective of the capacity of other departments--and its authorities and funding mechanisms should reflect that reality. The Department of Defense would no more outsource this substantial and costly security requirement to a civilian agency than it would any other key military mission. On the other hand, it must be implemented in close coordination and partnership with the Department of State.

For a long time, programs like the State Department's Foreign Military Financing were of minimal interest to the U.S. armed forces. That our military would one day need to build large amounts of partner capacity to fulfill its mission is something that was not anticipated when the FMF program began. The attacks of 9/11 and the operations that followed around the globe reinforced to military planners that the security of America's partners is essential to America's own security. As borne out by Afghanistan, Iraq, and in other theaters large and small, success in the war on terror will depend as much on the capacity of allies and partners in the moderate Muslim world as on the capabilities of our own forces.