Contact: Josh Holly; 202.226.3988
Hunter Opening Statement for Hearing on Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request for the U.S. Central Command and U.S. Special Operations Command
Washington D.C. – House Armed Services Committee Ranking Republican Duncan Hunter (R-CA) today released the following opening statement for the committee’s hearing on the Fiscal Year 2009 budget request for the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM):
“Today, our committee will receive testimony from two American patriots, who may in fact have the most high-profile portfolios of any of our combatant commands—Admiral Fallon of U.S. Central Command and Admiral Olson of U.S. Special Operations Command. Gentlemen, your testimony today will help to lay the groundwork for the important national security policy discussions and related budgetary decisions that we will undertake over the coming year. Thank you for being here.
“It comes as no surprise that operations in Iraq remain a frequent topic of security-related debates here in Washington and elsewhere. It seems to me, though, that the tenor of these discussions has changed dramatically due to improving security and stability there. No one can doubt that these successes are due in large part to the leadership and vision of both you, Admiral Fallon, and your wartime commander, General Petraeus, in Iraq.
“And those security conditions have been key to other notable improvements since this time last year. On the political side, the Iraqi government has used increased ‘breathing room’ to pass the 2008 national budget, amnesty and de-Baathification laws and to work on hydrocarbon and other key pieces of legislation. They are also making headway on economic development, and we look forward to hearing more about these initiatives when General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testify before this committee next month.
“That said; I do have a few concerns on the security side. Coalition forces have trained and equipped more than 400,000 Iraqi Security Forces, and we are turning to the mission of enhancing their ‘enablers’—such as command and control, logistics and combat support capabilities. As these forces continue on a positive glide-path and conditions continue to improve, we will be able to bring more American troops home—something that we’ve already begun to see as some of the U.S. ‘surge units’ redeploy out of Iraq. But I wonder about the vehicles that we have sent over to that theater—in particular, up-armored HMMWV’s and trucks. In light of existing National Guard and other needs here at home, Admiral Fallon, I would appreciate your views on the conditions of these vehicles and the advisability of bringing them home to help with the reset requirements of National Guard units.
“In turning to the other major engagement in the CENTCOM area, this committee recognizes that a stable and moderate Afghanistan is vital for the security interests of both the United States and our allies. Today, U.S. military personnel serving in Afghanistan fall under two different command structures with two discrete mission sets—about 15,000 operate under the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which is responsible for securing the nation and about 13,000 serve under CENTCOM for counter-terrorism operations and training Afghan National Security Forces.
“In the coming weeks, the United States will deploy 3,200 additional Marines to Afghanistan, and I understand that over 2,000 of these men and women will report to the southern part of that country. This is a significant addition to NATO forces there, and I wonder about the assumptions and factors that contributed to this decision. In particular, I am interested in your thoughts regarding our NATO allies’ military capabilities and political will to operate in a combat environment.
“Also, I am concerned about the reported ambiguity about the command of these additional forces—whether they will fall under ISAF or CENTCOM operational control. Clearly, this deployment illustrates the need to think long and hard about the current and future command and control structure in Afghanistan. Some have proposed solutions, such as installing a three-star headquarters that would be responsible for all U.S. forces operating in Afghanistan. However, it’s my view that before we start changing the wiring diagram, the commanders in the field—and the commanders before us today—must address some key questions: does the current ISAF and CENTCOM division of labor make sense, and does it maximize the effectiveness of the capabilities provided by U.S. forces? Gentlemen, I welcome your recommendations regarding this command and control arrangement.
“Regarding Special Operations Command, Admiral Olson, I note that since 2001, SOCOM has been at the forefront of U.S. military operations, especially in CENTCOM’s area of responsibility. SOCOM has proven ready, willing and able to take on some of the most complicated and dangerous threats in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and around the globe. We can all say with great confidence that our special operations forces have done an outstanding job.
“As we discuss SOCOM’s current and future posture, we must acknowledge that the important role of this particular command will not diminish in future. Despite having a majority of its forces in the CENTCOM region, SOCOM still engages on a world-wide basis, continuing the very same efforts to improve regional stability and partner nation capacity that had been its focus before September 11th. To respond better to this growing demand and meet these challenges, SOCOM has been growing its capability, and I note that with personnel and inventory growth come concerns about the long-term health of our special operations forces. So I ask: will this planned growth truly provide the capability needed for the future, and what are the challenges in meeting the command’s growth goals and its statutory requirement for manning and equipping special operations forces?
“Additionally, I believe many of us have particular concern for the downturn in the command’s budget which seems to be incongruent with the growth of the command and the fact that SOCOM’s operational role will likely increase in the future.
“Finally, Admiral Olson, I note that the Unified Command Plan designates SOCOM as the ‘lead’ combatant command for the Global War on Terrorism and charges SOCOM with new responsibilities as the ‘synchronizing’ command for GWOT operations. I would appreciate your insights on how SOCOM’s current authorities meet the command’s new responsibilities and conduct world-wide missions. Are there additional authorities that would help make your job easier?”
###