Senator Webb to DoD: What has been learned strategically from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya?

Says Administration must clearly define vital national interests for operations in Afghanistan before public loses patience

Washington, DC—At a Senate Committee on Armed Services hearing, Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) today questioned senior Department of Defense officials about past and future strategic models for addressing threats to the United States and how military force is applied. He also warned that the Administration should clearly define America’s vital national interests in Afghanistan before the public loses patience.

“If we look at the models of the past 10 years, we ought to have a better idea of how we're going to move into the future,” said Senator Webb.

On the Iraq Model: “We ended up as an occupying force in the middle of sectarian violence that followed our invasion. We’ve spent well over a trillion dollars and…have seen the empowerment of Iran in the process.”

On the Afghanistan Model: “We have assumed the risk and the expense of nation building.  It's costly, it's casualty producing, and I, quite frankly, don't know what the outcome is going to be.”

On the Libya Model: “We have seen unbridled presidential discretion in terms of the decision when to use military power beyond all normal historical precedent.”

“So what I come back to is what have we learned from this?” asked Senator Webb. “What is the model now in terms of how we define the existential threats to the United States and how we apply military force to them?

In response, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta responded, “Senator, you have raised some very important issues and this is really a very appropriate time to raise those questions.  As we're in the process of trying to trim over $450 billion from the defense budget, we have to look at larger strategies here as to what kind of defense system we need to build as we confront those challenges and as we look to the future… That's something clearly I need your advice and guidance on as we try to structure the future in the Defense Department.”

Senator Webb concluded, “If you want the country to have the patience with respect to fighting a long war, it is going to be even more important to define very clearly what is the vital national interest in terms of our current operations in Afghanistan.”

A partial transcript of the hearing follows:

Senator Webb: “We tend to go tactical in these discussions when we should be struggling with the strategic and operational model that we should be using in the future to address international terrorism. There's not a cure-all, but if we look at the models of the past 10 years--how we have struggled with this issue --we ought to have a better idea of how we're going to move into the future on these things.  

“We can start with the model of Iraq. The discussions today clearly indicate that we have inherited certain responsibilities as a result of what, in my view, was a great strategic blunder. There was no Al Qaida activity in Iraq when we invaded.  We ended up as an occupying force in the middle of sectarian violence that followed our invasion.  We've spent well over a trillion dollars and at the same time—as I and others were predicting—we have seen the empowerment of Iran in the process.

“We can then go to the Afghanistan model where there were legitimate issues in terms of international terrorism, but more recently we have assumed the risk and the expense, clearly, of nation building.  It's costly, it's casualty producing, and I, quite frankly, don't know what the outcome is going to be.

“We've seen an addition to this model in Libya, where we have seen unbridled presidential discretion in terms of the decision when to use military power beyond all normal historical precedent. We have a definition of a humanitarian mission in order to unilaterally introduce the American military into a theater of operations.  It's a vague and worrisome standard when you apply it into the future.   When an administration comes forward and says, ‘This is a conflict we don't have to discuss that with the Congress,’ I think we all ought to be thinking hard about the implications down the road.  

“Then recently we have the use of special operations and more particularly Predators from remote bases, attacking terrorist targets and highly secret missions in remote locations in areas which have fragile governmental systems or no governmental systems.  

“So what I come back to is what have we learned from this?  What is the model now in terms of how we define the existential threats to the United States and how we apply military force to them?”

…

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta:  “Senator, you have raised some very important issues and this is really a very appropriate time to raise those questions.  As we're in the process of trying to trim over $450 billion from the defense budget, we have to look at larger strategies here as to what kind of defense system we need to build as we confront those challenges and as we look to the future.

“Part of this has to be based on the threats that are out there.  Clearly we're going to continue to have a threat from terrorism and we're going to have to confront that. I don't think it necessarily means that we put 150,000 people into different countries in order to deal with that.  We have ways to do that that are much more effective, much more agile, much more efficient.

“We continue to have the threat of nuclear capability from both North Korea and Iran. We've got to be prepared to deal with that threat. We've got to be able to confront China.  We've got to be able to deal with the cyber threat.  We've got to deal with the challenge of other rising powers.

“All of these things are the kinds of threats that we're going to confront.  What kind of force do we need to have, that would make us effective at dealing with those threats? That's something clearly I need your advice and guidance on as we try to structure the future in the Defense Department.”  

Senator Webb:  “On that point, Mr. Secretary, if you want the country to have the patience with respect to fighting a long war, it is going to be even more important to define very clearly what is the vital national interest in terms of our current operations in Afghanistan.”