Lieutenant General Thomas F. Metz tells the House Armed Services Committee that we cannot completely eradicate IEDs but we can remove their strategic importance (0:23).

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

“As long as we have the most powerful military in the world, nobody will attack us directly. Asymmetric threats will be the order of the day,” said Chairman Vic Snyder (D-Ark.) during a House Armed Services Committee hearing on defeating the improvised explosive device (IED).

In response to threats like these the Department of Defense began a ‘Manhattan project-like effort’ to combat the rise of IEDs. This endeavor took the form of the Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), a 3,600-employee task force charged with eliminating the strategic influence of IEDs. This goal has been attempted through a variety of means, including going after the networks that provide the materials for IEDs in order to make them more costly to create, and bringing American police detectives abroad to more efficiently track down those who use them.

While the organization has met with success, there are questions about its future capabilities. The House Armed Services Committee is concerned over whether future asymmetric weapon use should be confronted by JIEDDO or if new organizations should be created as threats emerge.

One of JIEDDO’s strengths is its ability to uniquely focus on IEDs.

“We have achieved our success because of that laser focus. If we open up that aperture too wide and too quickly we’ll lose that laser focus,” said JIEDDO Director Lieutenant General Thomas F. Metz, warning not to change the current structure of the organization.

However this this manner of of specialization has drawn criticism. Snyder replied,

“If we put on hold all things and changes that we think the government might need to do because we’re involved in a war we could try to be declaring a time out for a long time. I don’t think that’s a very good reason not to want to do things more efficiently.”

Madeleine Albright says that the military has done very well in Iraq, but the mission has still hurt our moral authority. (0:50)

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

In a hearing today, Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said that the Bush administration has cost the United States “moral authority” in the eyes of the international community. Albright said that while America is still “the world’s mightiest power,” America needs to reestablish respect from abroad.

Albright said that the first thing the next president should do is withdraw troops from Iraq. She said that having troops in Iraq has contributed to a negative view of America globally. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) disagreed and said “Our work has elevated our reputation.” Albright said a withdrawal would look favorable internationally because the United States can “steer credit to responsible Iraqi leaders.” She emphasized that the military has been brilliant, but the problem in Iraq is political. Albright said that this admistration has had an “overemphasis on military aspects of missions.”

Energy policy has not been addressed by the United States enough, according to Albright. She said that our future energy policies should focus on innovation and finding alternative sources. Albright said that offshore drilling is not a solution. Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) said that our energy policy is a “vital component of our grand strategy.”

Albright specified the five major issues for the next president would be nuclear non-proliferation, fighting terrorism without creating more terrorists, promoting democracy without forcing it on other nations, the growing gap between the poor and wealthy, and establishing new energy policy. Albright that she hoped that the next president would work closely with Congress and advocate bipartisanship.

Following an announcement by the Bush administration to withdraw 8,000 further troops from Iraq by February and funnel more troops to Afghanistan, the Secretary of Defense said that both the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan are top military priorities. “With positive developments in Iraq, the strategic flexibility provided by ongoing troop reductions there , and the prospect of further reductions next year– I think it is possible in the months to come to do militarily what we must in both countries,” said Sec. Robert Gates in his written statement, referencing earlier Defense Department statements that in Afghanistan the U.S. does what it can and in Iraq it does what it must.

Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who drew the earlier distinction prioritizing the two wars, told the House Armed Services Committee that both conflicts are military priorities. “These [wars] are our priorities and they’ve been our priorities,” he said. Mullen also enumerated the differences between the two conflicts including the nature of the enemy to the terrain on the ground. “We treated the needs of each war separately– and weighed out decisions for each solely– against the risks inherent and resources available.”

Both Gates and Mullen made statements indicating united military decision making in reference to a new book by journalist Bob Woodward and a subsequent series in the Washington Post on the surge and how the military may have been circumvented by the White House. Mullen who is quoted in the book, emphasiezd that he was not interviewed about his statements. Mullen said that his advice, as chairman to the president was allowed up the chain of command unimpeded. “I think that is a very important part of our democracy and how the system is supposed to work.”

Speaking about the recent 45-day period of review of troop levels in Iraq Mullen said that the decision was “candid, transparent, and thoroughly collaborative…including the Joint Chiefs of Staff.”

Additionally Gates announced that a procurement process for a new air tanker fleet would be postponed until July of 2009. The original bidding and selection process had been contested by Boeing and the GAO ordered a new request for proposals. Gates said because of the changes that need to be made to the “emotional” and “complicated” process, this procurement should be left to the next administration.

Chairwoman Susan Davis (D-Cali.) of the House Armed Services Committee describes the staff shortage in care centers for wounded soldiers. (1:15)

 

 Standard Podcast [1:15m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

The House Armed Services Committee met to discuss the threat of an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) attack on the U.S. Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) said that the potential damage that could be caused by an EMP would be significant.

Dr. William Graham, Chairman of the Commission to Asses the Threat to the United States from EMP Attack, said that an EMP attack could severely cripple U.S. infrastructure, causing power outages that could last up six month. He said that in the 1990’s Russian scientists tested 300-kiloton weapons at approximately 60,150, and 300 kilometers above a test site in central Asia. He said that scientists recorded damages to cables as far as 600 kilometers from the test site. He said that this is a fairly accurate model of what could happen if an EMP was detonated over the U.S.

Graham said that because we are such a developed nation an EMP attack poses a much larger threat because America is dependent on many kinds of electronic devices. He said that there are many potential enemies of the U.S. who have EMP capabilities including Iran who has tested them.

Dr. Andrew Krepinevich talks about the changing face of warfare and the implications of linguistic challenges. Krepinevich believes that forces against the United States will not utilize traditional warfare but will rather utilize chemical weapons. (0:15)

 

 Standard Podcast [0:15m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

House Armed Services Committee subcommittee on Terrorism and Unconventional Threats ranking member, Mac Thornberry (R-TX) says that efforts at security legislation are being punished by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who, he says, is using the Colombia Free Trade Agreement as “political leverage.” (0:38)

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

House Armed Services Committee subcommittee on Terrorism and Unconventional Threats ranking member, Mac Thornberry (R-TX) argues that his committee can not fully do its job to fight terrorism if other security measures like FISA or authorizing interrogation techniques are not addressed in the House. (0:57)

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download