Previous IFPA-Fletcher Conferences

National Security for a New Era:
Focusing National Power

November 14-15, 2001
The Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center
Washington, D.C.

Morning Address: General Richard B. Myers, USAF

Dr. Pfaltzgraff: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this, the second day of our conference. We have, as we did yesterday, and exciting and informative and very important series of addresses and presentations and discussion for you. I would like at this time to introduce General Shinseki, who will be introducing our opening speaker this morning.

As all of you know, General Shinseki assumed his duties as the 34th Chief of Staff of the United States Army on June 22, 1999. He is a graduate of the United States Military Academy, has a bachelor of science degree. He holds a Master of Arts degree in English literature from Duke University. General Shinseki's military education includes the Armor Officer Advanced Course, the United States Army Command and General Staff College, and War College. Most importantly for us in this room, General Shinseki has been the moving and driving force making this conference and previous meetings in its series in recent years possible. So it is with very great pleasure that I welcome General Shinseki. (Applause)

General Shinseki: Well, good morning, everyone, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen. Bob Pfaltzgraff, thank you for that generous introduction and, more importantly, thanks for your services as moderator yesterday. You and Jackie Davis have done it again this year, pulling us all together, getting us off to a great start. Well done.

You know, listening to the several references yesterday to the date 11 September, I could not help as I sat out there in the audience - could not help but recall that very recently, here I stood on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange with other service chiefs, actually this past Monday, the 12th of November. Over that long Veteran's Day weekend, we had rung the bell at 9:30 to begin the Exchange's international trading day. And as you recall, the tragic accident with American flight 589 had just occurred and was beginning to break on the air ways. And I had a chance to see the near-immediate effects of the reports of that tragic accident. As it broke on the television air ways, and watched the downturn in numbers on the exchange sales boards, and I was struck by the speed with which the trading public reacted. It was instructive - the power of information and the confidence of the American people. And in an unusual way for me, we are both visible and almost tactile.

But the confidence of the American people to get up and go to work every day and put their children in school to the care of others, to get on mass transit, to stimulate our large and powerful economy so that they can create the basis of commerce, go about their daily lives, pay taxes every day. How central to the strength of our nation, the confidence of the American people. And I had to wonder, what contributions do we, as the military instrument of national power, bring to the table in nurturing that confidence? To our citizens, but to the citizens of other countries, as well? It is an international trading arena, confidence to go about their daily routines and stoke the boilers of our economic engines. And though we have declared war on international terrorism, it is a war of asymmetry and not the major conflict for which we maintain major standing forces in all services, with the intent of keeping the effects like incidents of the 11th of September from ever again being visited on the American homeland. We must be sure to be able to transition from the unconventional to the major conventional war when and if necessary. That is what makes us world-class in the profession of arms, and that is what will fully nurture the confidence of the American people, no matter what happens: to understand and to believe that we can and will prevail.

That said, it's my honor and privilege to introduce to you this morning the senior member of the U.S. military member of the U.S. defense establishment. He is a visionary, who is committed to keeping our military ready for today's challenges, and also preparing them for those that will arrive in the next century. He is a Kansan, and he brings together those great Midwestern attributes of common sense and hard work, and a great sense of humor. Thirty-six years of service to the nation, eminently qualified to be our Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, great breadth of operational commands, leadership positions, joint assignments. Learned the profession in the skies of Vietnam as a young fighter pilot; today carries over 4100 flight hours on six different aircraft, 600 of those hours in the F-4 combat hours, commanded U.S. forces in Japan in the 5th Air Force in Yakota, prior service as the Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Commander of Pacific Air Forces in Hickham, Hawaii, and CINC-NORAD, U.S. Space Command, and nineteen long, valuable months' hard work as the Vice Chairman. And their announcement of a selection to be the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs on 24 August, the President of the United States called him a man of steady resolve, determined leadership, a skilled and steady hand. The SECDEF described him as a man of candor, sound judgment, keen insights, fiber, and good humor. Ladies and gentlemen, I couldn't agree more or describe him any better. Please join me in welcoming my friend, the 15th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard B. Myers. (Applause)

Chairman Myers:Thank you. Distinguished guests, and federal flag and general officers, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. Rick, as he leaves the stage, thank you for that introduction. That was very kind. And to Dr. Pfaltzgraff, and to Rick both for the invitation to join you both today. I would also like to extend my appreciation to the Army staff, General Shinseki, the Fletcher School, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Net Assessment for organizing this important event. I think this event comes exactly the right time with the right kind of people to discuss exactly what we must be discussing in this time, and the events that we are going through.

You know, last Sunday, like a lot of you - I know Rick was there, because we were seated together - but I had the privilege to participate in Veterans' Day ceremonies over in Arlington Cemetery. Given recent events, for me, anyway, and I think probably Rick, and for others there, it was an especially emotional event as we pay tribute to those who have served in both peace and war to protect our freedom. And I will tell you, no matter how many years I wear this uniform, when they play Taps out there, by the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, I certainly got some chills up my spine and a tear in my eye. Because it's not only those who have served, but it's those who are serving. And knowing at that very moment, we have got folks in harm's way trying to defend our freedoms, it was just a very poignant time for me. And of course, Veterans' Day, November 11th, was also significant for another reason this year. It marks the two-month anniversary of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and on the Pentagon.

That date is really imprinted on our minds. We now speak about it in short hand. We simply say 'Before,' and everybody knows that we mean before September 11th. So I think with that simple word of 'before,' we acknowledge that we have entered a new era in international relations and thus, the theme that you all have chosen for this particular year, this conference, national security for a new era, focusing national power, certainly underscores that fact. I'm sure you have already discussed what vision you all had when you picked that theme, because nobody could have guessed how important those words and how appropriate they are to our current situation. It's a pretty - some pretty smart folks thought about it and came up with exactly the right theme.

This morning I would like to discuss three issues that are directly related and connected to national security in this new era. First one will be winning the war against global terrorism and second, joint warfighting. And third, transformation. And we don't spend a lot of time on the last one, but I do want to make a couple of remarks on that.

After the attacks on September 11th, President Bush declared war against global terrorism. He did so because of the significant and growing challenge that presents a direct threat to freedom and to freedom-loving peoples around the world. He said it was time for action, and we have taken action. All instruments of national power are now engaged in a just and relentless campaign that we have named Operation Enduring Freedom. And many nations around the world have joined the cause. Our objectives in the first military campaign against terrorism are fairly straightforward and simple: first, to deny the use of Afghanistan as a safe haven by Al Qaeda and the terrorist network they control; and second, to make clear to the Taliban and others that there is a price to be paid for harboring and supporting terrorists; third, to destroy the military forces of the Taliban and Al Qaeda; and lastly, to provide humanitarian assistance to the long-suffering Afghani people.

This truly is a new kind of war. And in this war, we in the military may not be the decisive - may not play the decisive role. In fact, it's a war contested on many different battlefields, involving diplomats, bankers, law enforcement officials, and customs. Even the IRS is involved. Thankfully, they are on our side. I'm going to get in trouble on that one, I know.

If you recall, the President's remarks in the Rose Garden on the 24th of September, he said, quote, "This morning, a major thrust of our war on terrorism began with the stroke of a pen. Today, we have launched a strike on the financial foundation of the global terror network." Now, it's also important to note that the U.S. government seeks to coordinate the use of all our instruments of national power with the actions of many countries that make up our working coalition. In many ways, the new war against global terrorism is like taking down organized crime syndicate. You want to hit them where it will hurt; you go after the finances; you go after the logistics; you interrupt their information flow and ability to train and recruit new personnel; and you send in undercover agents to gather intelligence. You disrupt their routine and go after known bases of operation. Some of this requires shooters who can kick down the door and engage in firefights where appropriate, and some of it requires green eyeshade types tracking down finances, and some of it requires Generation Y whiz kids surfing the internet.

The key in any case to all of the above is synchronizing these efforts so we can maximize the impact that we have and get the desired effects. Doing so requires a great deal of coordination. Each element is important; some are more visible than others, but it's the entire package and the combined effects of all of this that generates powerful results. And that's why today, all elements of national power are engaged in this war on terrorism.

I have been involved in interagency debates and operations and the process ever since I was Assistant to the Chairman back under General Shalikashvili, back in the middle of this decade. And I would say so far, the interagency coordination and cooperation has been absolutely remarkable. In fact, I have never seen the different elements of our government work so well together. This is truly national security in a new era. I recently saw a firsthand example as I was going through the Joint Staff Crisis Action Team space the other day, just to see what was going on. There was a fellow in a suit; he was introduced as our FBI representative to the Crisis Action Team, which is not a normal piece of that team. And I think that was a pretty good optic about what we are talking about, here. We are sharing information, we are sharing people, and we are sharing resources like never before. And we need to push this new level of cooperation out to the theaters, as well.

There is some debate about this. I'm sure your panel can talk about it later. But we are looking at assigning liaison officers to different agencies to the staff of the combat commands. They want that kind of cooperation. Most of you know that the combatant commands already have good intelligence liaison, whether it be CIA or NSA or DIA or so forth. They have got that part pretty well down. But in terms of Treasury and FBI and others, they do not. A good model here, and maybe the Commandant of the Coast Guard talked about it yesterday - I don't know - but a good model is the way we handled the, I will call it the drug war, for lack of a better term, where we put joint interagency task forces together. Very, very effective, there. And we think they can be effective on this global war on terrorism, as well.And the reason we do that is because this coordination is not only important inside the beltway, but particularly outside the beltway, as well.

So in my view, the interagency process is working well on many fronts. But it obviously has not been perfect. One area in particular I think we've been slow to get going has been our information operations campaign. Despite our best efforts, we took too much time to put together the team, if you will, so occasionally we missed the opportunity to send the right message. Sometimes we sent missed signals and we missed opportunities, as well. I'm sure you are well aware of all that. Information operations, when I use the term, since it's hard to find a good definition for this particular term - I'm talking about the broadest use of the term, from psychological warfare to public affairs, and the whole gamut of things that we do. It's a complicated and demanding business, and when you move into new territory like a global war on terrorism, the task is made even more difficult.

I think in the future, what we need to look at front loading our information operations campaign. This can't be done by a pickup team. It takes too long to get everybody up to speed and to figure out who is working for whom. Obviously, we have go to do it a lot smarter, and fortunately, I think we have turned the corner in that regard. In fact, last night, Secretary Rumsfeld walked through some of the information operations activities that are going on in the Pentagon and his fifteen-minute visit turned into a forty-five-minute visit. I think he appreciated what they are doing now, and how it's integrated with all of the government agencies and National Security Council.

The campaign is also an important element of our coalition effort. I'm very pleased with the remarkable support that we have received form all of our friends around the world, and the information operations area, and across the board, for that matter. Our partners in this fight, the countries that want to rid the world of terrorist networks, are willing to do what they can to support the cause. They will support us in many different but important ways. And I can tell you the support they provide, including intelligence, overflight rights, cruise missile launches, logistic support, and access to operational bases, has been tremendous.

Achieving unity of effort and keeping many different countries focused on the primary objectives through the long months ahead will be a demanding task. In fact, it will not be just with our coalition partners, but with the American population. I was asked recently what we, in a mainly civilian audience, what can we do to help? And I said the main thing that you can do to help is to understand that this will be a very long war, and we need patience. And don't expect that if you are not seeing something going on, that means nothing is going on. Some of this will be visible, some of it will be invisible. So patience is what is required.

Given that, and our coalition cracks will inevitably occur. But I think what keeps us all glued together is the thought of the 5000 innocent victims - men, women, and children from 80 different countries, from essentially all cultural, religious, and ethnic groups. That thought should help prevent those cracks from growing too wide. It's important to remember, however, that maintaining the coalition, while very, very important, is not an end to itself, and we shouldn't allow elaborate consultations to get in the way of operational progress, and we need to make progress. We have to find an appropriate balance between those actions necessary to maintain the evolving coalitions and those actions necessary to wage war successfully. I know you have a panel later in the day to discuss coalition issues, and I know who is on your panel, and they are truly experts in this area - far smarter than I am on that. And they will give you great insight. And I look forward to hearing how some of the discussion went, because I think it will give us insight on what is important in terms of our coalition partners, because this is about partnership.

Having discussed the larger context, let me turn to the element of global terrorism campaign that I'm most familiar with currently, and that's the shooting war. As you can imagine, winning the war on terrorism is my number-one priority, as is everyone in uniform's number-one priority right now. And while all elements of national power are fully engaged in this war, I want to focus on the military role in just the next few minutes. And then I would like to move to other priorities that I want to advance during my tenure as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, priorities that will help us win this war and any conflicts that we face, and those two are joint fighting and transformation, as I mentioned earlier.

But this morning, as we meet here in the Ronald Reagan Building, our armed forces are continuing the offensive on the ground and in the air against Al Qaeda and the Taliban that supports them. We are heavily engaged in what will be a long and difficult fight. We have seen some successes over the past few days, but there is much fighting that remains to be done until we achieve the victory that we want. It's important to remember that these activities, these military activities in Afghanistan, are only the beginning of a global campaign, and perhaps the most visible component, as I mentioned earlier. I think the media reporting of the operation has kept America well-informed over the past few weeks. We have all seen in both pictures and words, Navy fighters launching from carriers, Air Force bombers streaking across the skies of Afghanistan, Marines coming in from the rolling decks of the amphibious ready group, and Army Rangers and Special Forces units parachuting into enemy territory.

These images, I think, tell part of the story, but they are in reality, nothing more than individual snapshots that fail to capture the true nature of our operation. The real story, in my view, is the manner in which General Franks and the entire Central Command staff and team have choreographed and executed the overall effort. In my view, General Franks is an absolutely outstanding commander and leader, and he has effectively called the strengths and unique capabilities that the different services bring to this fight. And he has worked them all together to generate the power and synergy of a truly joint effort. This is really what joint warfighting is all about and why joint warfighting is so important.

I should add that we are currently engaged in a second theater of operations in the war on terrorism, and that's right here at home in America. And I guess you're going to have Governor Ridge speak later after me. That will be a good time to talk about that other front, where we're engaged. Here at home, our joint forces play a key supporting role as well, flying combat air patrols (who would ever have through it), providing security at airports and for our critical infrastructure, inspecting ships that are entering our ports, and supporting law enforcement efforts and preparing to assist first responders in case of another tragedy. Homeland security is another area of cooperation, the likes of which we have not seen in the past. And you know, this has been discussed for the last several year, and the Department of Defense's role in homeland security is - and the precise definition and who is going to be in charge inside the Department of Defense, and if we go on down to the unified command and combatant commands, who is going to orchestrate our support, is yet to be determined in its final end state. We know who is doing it today, but the final end state is going to be determined. In fact, those are some of the discussions we have with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General Shinseki has been an active participant in that, because the Army plays such a large role, in particular the Army and National Guard.

Obviously, the amount of coordination involved in bringing all the elements of national power to bear in this current crisis is significant. Coordinating the military aspects alone can be a difficult proposition. In my view, the best way to facilitate the coordination process is to field a joint force with interoperable weapon systems and interoperable command, control, communications, surveillance requirements - C4ISR. This will enable timely and informed decisions by operators and commanders. If we are going to focus on anything in my tenure, we have got to focus on better C4ISR in a way to give operational commanders the tools they need to make decisions on a timely manner. I'm going to talk about that a little bit more in just a second.

Thankfully, in this current campaign, our systems are, for the most part, working well together, and much better than I would say in Operation Allied Force. We have taken a lot of Kosovo lessons learned, and in the intervening couple of years, turned that around where we have much better interoperability, particularly for fleeting targets. We can attack them much more efficiently than in the past. But in some cases, we've been forced to cobble together creative work-arounds, because some of our existing forces did not plug and play in this joint war fight the way we would like. One example I would use is the B-2 bomber. I visited the B-2 crews out at Whiteman Air Force Base a couple weeks ago on my way to Fort Riley. As you know, the B-2 cruiser participated in the first three nights of the conflict, primarily used there until we beat down the defenses, particularly up in North Afghanistan.

As you know, these crews flew from Missouri to Afghanistan, and in fact, what they did when they landed in Diego Garcia, the crew would get out, a new crew would get in, the motors would never shut down, they would add new oil to the motors because that was a limiting factor to fly back home. The one-way trip to Diego through Afghanistan would take almost two days, almost two days. The reason I mentioned that is that, if it takes you that long to get to the target, you are going to have some updates along the way. The threats can change; targets can change; and they did. Therefore, you have got to get updated in a timely manner. You would think that a modern aircraft that cost as much as a B-2 would have this interoperability built in, but, in fact, it doesn't. So how they do this: they had a special antenna with a special comm. Set up that came down to a lap top in the cockpit, which one of the pilots would hold on his lap, and that's how they did their communications and how they got updates of targets and so forth. Effective, but a lot cruder than we need to do.

So, are we managing? Yes, absolutely, they are able to manage. This is one example. I'm sure every service can cite other examples along this very line. But we have got to do, we must do better in the future. So the bottom line to me is the weapons and weapons systems must be designed with joint and coalition interoperability in mind. We have got to do that up front. So we hear this term, born joint, that's certainly what we would like to do and of course, we have got to upgrade some of our legacy systems, plug and play, because we are going to have some of these systems around for a long time.

I think the Army knows a lot about this as they try to modernize the way they communicate and keep track of forces. So this is the point on interoperability: that it's absolutely essential to ensure the joint force of the future achieves the highest level of effectiveness and ensure our force is agile enough - we've got to be agile to operate inside the decision group of even the most capable adversary. So we have got to take advantage of our superior information-gathering systems, which we've got some very good information-gathering systems, and develop enhanced knowledge management tools that would give our commanders the ability to see the right data when they need it.

What we are really trying to do here is to dissipate as much as possible the fog of war, to enable timely, decisive action by our commanders. This is a key part of joint war fighting, and all the services need to get it right, and so do we on the Joint Staff as we help facilitate that. So as we move from science and technology to research and development to procurement, we have got to bear in mind that if a system is not interoperable, it's probably not right.

As I said earlier, our immediate and most important goal, and the one I think is going to have the biggest impact, because it may impact the ability of the commander to command, is interoperable C4ISR. We simply must get our joint task force commanders the necessary tools to fully integrate their combat power. To help work this issue, we are exploring the idea of expanding Joint Task Force Headquarters. As you know if you have read the QDR Report, that was one of the issues that came up. This is an operational-level headquarters unit. It's not an on-call fighting force like the standing Joint Task Force - that's a different concept, and one that is being studied. This one is a tool to help push greater interoperability. The Joint Force Headquarters would have robust communication, computer, command and control, and intelligence architecture that all future weapons platforms and communication systems and any upgrades to existing systems would have to be designed to plug into it. We're also counting on Joint Requirements Oversight Council, which General Pete Pace, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, chairs for reforms to help in this area. Our intent is that any system brought forward for review must be shown to be interoperable with these systems. And by the way, this is not an easy task. Before you decide how it's interoperable, you have to have the operational concept of how this all fits together. That is the more difficult issue that's before us, so it's one that the Oversight Council is working on several different strategic topics.

We want to avoid acquiring new systems that will have trouble plugging and playing in the joint world of the future. A good example here, perhaps, is the F-22. As it was designed, it was designed to know what's going on in a flight of F-22s, but not to tell the rest of the world what that flight of F-22s knows. So it was absorbing lots of data and it received lots of data, but it wasn't sharing other than among its own flight members. Well, today, that's not interoperable, and so the Air Force has been tasked in the next major update to the avionics to make it interoperable. So what it sees can be relayed to other folks; that's one of the things I'm talking about, and one of the examples.

As the Chairman, I think it's my responsibility to push jointness and interoperability at every opportunity, and I will do so not only because it's in the statutes that I do so. I will do so because I believe it really is necessary to fight effectively in this new era. And I don't do this alone - I do this with the rest of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, because my statutory authority extends to the Joint Chiefs of Staff when we are meeting inside the tank, when we take off our service caps and try to do what is best for the services and best for this nation.

I also intend to focus on transformation. During my tenure, we could pass out a piece of paper and ask everybody to write down the definition of transformation, and I don't know how many folks are here this morning, but my guess is we'd probably get several hundred different definitions. So I'm not going to go into a lot of detail this morning, but speak about it in general terms, that if we are to evolve into a decision-superior force, transformation must spread across doctrine, organizations, training, not just material solutions. This is precisely what the Army did just prior to World War II with the Louisiana Maneuver that transformed our understanding of armored warfare.

Today we must also establish an environment that fosters innovative thinking and create a military culture that embraces a new level of collaboration between the services. We must also push joint command, control, communications, and computers and intelligence capabilities, C4I capabilities, to lower levels to increase the flexibility and responsiveness of our forces. Joint force commanders and their staffs must understand not only what their own service brings to the joint fight, but also what capabilities from the other services, as well as the coalition partners, are available to plug and play into their system.

All of this is obviously going to take time and a lot of hard work, and we are looking at a number of approaches to help, and we will use the experimentation efforts of Joint Forces Command to help synchronize these efforts and to validate them, as well.

There was a time, and not all that long ago, that our military force services, each very capable in their own right, moved along almost separate, unrelated, transformation routes, and I think we have come a long way in recent years. And the current joint effort in Afghanistan is proof of our progress. But our goal is to accelerate this process so all services move as an entity along an integrated transformation path toward a common vision for the future. This will not be easy, but it's absolutely necessary.

As a pessimist said recently, everyone is for transformation, but nobody wants to change. Despite the non-believers, I'm confident that jointness and transformation are achievable goals, and I believe they are relevant and necessary to this new era with all its danger and all its insecurity. I personally will pursue them vigorously, even as we continue to focus on winning this war against terrorism. As Exhibit 1 to some of the things I think we need to work on, when we were going through some of the QDR reviews this last spring, one of the panels on transformation was chaired by an individual who came to my office after receiving each of the services' transformation briefings, and he came in, he said, "Listen, every service sent us two or three star generals that were very articulate, with great Power Point slides that could explain their transformation process and their service, and in every case, it was brilliant presentation and our panel would question them. These folks were steeped in transformation, and they would talk about their services." He said, "What disturbed me, and why I'm in your office is-" I was a Vice Chairman at the time; he said, "Not one of the service presentations every said how what they are doing links to the joint fight. Not one time."

It would be easy to do that, wouldn't it? I mean, it would be easy, but so, we've got to overcome that. I think we have, in many respects, a lot of work to do as I mentioned. On September 11th, the terrorists demonstrated to the world that they are willing to kill indiscriminately in pursuit of their goals, and if given the opportunity, I don't think there is any doubt that they would do so again. Of course, our job is not to let them as best we can. So America is again rising to meet a new challenge, and as we fight this new war, we will draw our inspiration from the sacrifices made by so many other American heroes and other conflicts like the veterans we paid tribute to last weekend. One of those honored was a fellow named Rick Raumly. If there's some Marines in the audience, you might know Rick. He was - he went to Vietnam early in his life, enlisted in the Marine Corps and went to Vietnam and - I'm sorry; he went as an officer. He went to Vietnam - stepped on a land mine and blew off his legs. He was selected this year as the Disabled American Veterans - Disabled American Veteran of the Year. He is currently in the County Prosecution Office in Phoenix, Arizona. (inaudible) He has got about a thousand folks working for him, and he has got a national reputation, testified in front of Congress and others about fighting crime and so forth.

He is - his story struck me because of all, he is obviously a genuine American hero, a man of great integrity, of honor, of courage and commitment. It was an honor to meet him. He gets around fairly well without his legs, but still, as you watch him walk, it's a reminder of the sacrifice he made for our country. What was especially poignant to me as we were talking last Saturday night at this particular event, he mentioned that his son is a Captain in the United States Marine Corps. And guess where he is right now? He's with the 15th Unit, either on land or sea, over off the coast of Pakistan. I would guess that Captain Raumly, now, and others like him, all volunteers, are part of a new generation that has answered the call to service. These are obviously men and women of honor and of courage and of commitment, and they stand ready to defend and protect the freedoms we hold so dear.

When I think about young service members like Captain Raumly, I think about his dad before and what he sacrificed, and the challenge that is before us, I'm reminded and inspired by the words of General Omar Bradley who once wrote, quote, "Freedom: no word was ever spoken that has held out greater hope, demanded greater sacrifice, needed more to be nurtured, blessed more the giver, damned more its destroyer, or came closer to being God's will on earth. May America ever be its protector."
Ladies and gentlemen, I just say that we have a new generation of American, once again, fighting to protect our freedom. And let there be no doubt, we will prevail. Thank you very much. God bless you, and God bless America. (applause)

Dr. Pfaltzgraff: Thank you very much, General Myers, for that outstanding, inspiring, and informative address. We now have the opportunity about 20 minutes for questions and discussion. Who would like to open the discussion period? Please raise your hand and wait for the microphone. Yes? Right down here. Please identify yourself.

Audience: Good morning, Erin Winegrad, Washington Publisher. I wonder if you can elaborate on the information operation - how you think it needs to be improved and changed to be more effective?

General Myers: What I was alluding to in the presentation was - it just needs to get going faster. I think it's put together now in a way that is probably pretty effective in getting our messages out, whether it's in the leaflets we drop over Afghanistan or in the radio broadcast that the commander is broadcasting - the ability to change as those events on the ground change, coordinating that with people who speak out on this, both in the United States and in our coalitions. I think now it's working pretty well. It was just getting it started was very difficult, and it just took time, deciding who was in charge, realizing that it is all our departments and agencies play a role in this. And not only that, but that our coalition partners have a role to play in this, as well. I'd say for some time now, we have been off and running. But most of you understand where the problems were to begin with when you - when we have missed some opportunities probably to make some statements. It was going; it just wasn't as coherent and focused as it needed to be. I think we have turned the corner on that now.

Dr. Pfaltzgraff: We have some time for more questions. Who would be the next? What a bashful group. Over here, yes, please.

Audience: Sir, (inaudible), you talked so much about the Joint, and how important it is. The question is, could you say few things or share your view on the education of what has to be changed, meaning if you want to have jointness from my perspective, you have to be - work together, educated together, as soon as possible, even to not allow the (inaudible). Could you share?

General Myers: Sure, and I'm glad you asked that question, because as I mentioned in the speech a couple of times, this is an issue inside U.S. armed forces. It's also an issue on how we work with our coalition partners. That's a more difficult piece, particularly when you talk about the C4ISR part. It's difficult to figure out how we last together. I tell you it's particularly difficult when our coalition partners don't put a lot of money into the defense budget. You can't move yourself into the 21st century, you can't address security in this new era, unless you put the dollars to it, and I'm not pointing at any given ally or friend here. But most budgets, like our budgets, went down. They need to go up, so we can become interoperable.

But you make a very good point. Early in my career, and I suppose the same for Rick, there wasn't much jointness except for some occasional joint training. But our professional military education was not near as joint as it is today. We did not have the various courses for our joint staff officers, the capstone course. It took Goldwater-Nichols legislation to kind of force us together in ways we had not been before. I would say that now I have had two Army interns in my office as Vice Chairman and now as Chairman - I've still got one - their knowledge of joint operations is incredible compared to what my knowledge was at the same point in my career, when I was a Major in the U.S. Air Force, which is about where they are in their careers.

I think we are doing a lot of what we have to do. If we put together the standing Joint Task Force Headquarters, a standing headquarters, probably, and I don't know how this is going to come out because it has to be decided through some concept development experimentation down in Joint Forces Command, and we all got to take a look at it. But the concept might be that you have 40 or so officers enlisted that are on the nucleus of those standing - don't quote me that number; it could be a lot more, it could be fewer. And then virtually, you have a lot of other officers and NCOs connected to it, of all services, that would be ready to go into action if we had a particular action. So we are talking about not a lot of resources in peacetime, but the connectivity that if we had to do something quickly, we could put it together and go to the field and execute.

We might also - I mean, it's perfectly conceivable that you would have coalition partners in that standing Joint Task Force Headquarters. I mean, we do essentially that in NATO, but they are not as mobile and flexible as they probably need to be. And so, this is for other parts of the world where we don't have that kind of organization. But I think we are making pretty good progress in that. Your premise is actually right, absolutely right. Are we where we need to be? Probably not. Are we making progress? Absolutely yes.

Dr. Pfaltzgraff: Next question? Please wait for the microphone.

Audience: I'm Ann (inaudible) with the Christian Science Monitor. General, you described Afghanistan as the first campaign in the war on terror. What specific roles do you see for the U.S. military in a war beyond Afghanistan?

General Myers: Well, as I said in the - in my presentation, this is going to be across a broad area with lots of partnerships with all the elements of our national power. I do not want to specifically, or speculate on where the next military operation ought to be, but if you remember the goal, the goal is to eliminate international terrorist organization. The goal is to ensure that weapons of mass destruction do not fall in the hands of the terrorists. September 11th is obvious to all of us, whatever threshold there was for use of WMD was certainly passed on that day when innocent civilians were intentionally targeted by a terrorist organization.

So those countries that harbor terrorists, those countries that are in the production and the research for weapons of mass destruction, are all ones that will have to be dealt with, either diplomatically or through other means. And so I think we know where most of those are. You can read the State Department list of those countries that support terrorism, and we know where weapons of mass destruction are, for the most part, and produced. So that's what the war is against. And whether it's military action or whether it's diplomatic action or financial action, I don't know. I think I would opine that the message that is being sent by our actions inside Afghanistan, to rid Afghanistan of a regime that supports international terrorism is a pretty important - important message for the rest of the world to listen to and hopefully some countries will be a lot more cooperative and I will just leave it there.

Dr. Pfaltzgraff: We have time for one or two more questions. So who would like to be the next? We have two - this one back here, is that all the way back? Let's take one on that side for now and then we'll take one or two here. Please identify yourself.

Audience: I'm Pauline of the Associated Press. General, can you bring us up to date on any developments in Afghanistan overnight, any more defections, any more ground gained by the Taliban?

General Myers: Ground gained by the Taliban? They have been going backwards pretty fast. I think things are continuing in the same vein as they were continuing yesterday. How coherent the Taliban is still remains an issue. We know there are pockets of Taliban that are still active in the north around Kanduz. The numbers vary, but it could be several thousand that are still resisting. Part of our effort today will be up there to support the opposition against them. And a lot of focus on the south, to assist the, some of the tribal leaders and consolidating support down there and to see if they will continue to limit their support and deny the Taliban their support. That continues, as we have said, we have got small units in the south doing reconnaissance and interdiction, trying to sort out the good guys from the bad guys and destroying the bad guys' military capability (and them, for that matter), and that will continue. Humanitarian assistance continues under some of the lead of the - the United Nations and other non-governmental agencies and we are going to support that as best we can. My understanding now is that the land bridge between Uzbekistan and Mazar-E-Sharif in northern Afghanistan is open, and that supplies are starting to come in that way. I need to verify that. But that was an initial report this morning. This is exactly the right time of year to start getting some supplies in there to help those that don't have the food or the clothing or the blankets to make it through the winter.

Dr. Pfaltzgraff: We have time now for only one or two more questions. In fact, we have about three minutes. So what if I do the following: let each of the two of you ask your question, make it very brief, and then let General Myers have the concluding word. You can address both questions. Would that be okay?

General Myers: If I can remember two of them.

Dr. Pfaltzgraff: I will try to remember, too. I'm sure I can, but I will try. Go ahead.

Audience: Thank you. David Litt, the State Department, Political Advisor at Special Operations Command. Yesterday, I think it was General Clark. We had a lot of speakers, I can't remember. But he said he was somewhat disappointed at the reaction of young people on college campuses, young people they talk to. It was a lot of interest in service, some curiosity, but not a lot of commitment. I have heard some varying views of that. But what would be your recommendation of how we translate interest in the part of young people into commitment and service?

Dr. Pfaltzgraff: Okay, now let's go to the next question.

Audience: (inaudible) from the Air Force Staff. General, you talked about coordinating instruments in national power. You mentioned the law enforcement agencies. Obviously, cooperation with military and diplomatic power is also extremely important. We have made strides - we've got people like Ambassador Litt serving as policy advisors to the CINCs, and in this crisis, we had an Air Force officer on the State Department Task Force - I'm wondering if you could suggest any more specific organizational or management mechanisms we may put in place to better coordinate diplomacy and military power.

General Myers: I will talk about the second question first and the first question second, if that's okay. The way we are, as I mentioned in the remarks, what we are trying to do, with the combatant commanders want to do, what General Wilson wants to do in European Command, what they want to do with the Southern Command, and what General Frank wants in the Central Command, is much, many more. All of us have national power to be organized in a, I think what we are calling a joint interagency coordinating group, not a task force like the drug war, but a coordinating group to bring these elements of national power out to the commanders as they look at their theaters and they look at terrorist networks that need to be dealt with, that we understand how they are being dealt with, that we understand how they are being dealt with by the various agencies, either diplomatically if it's the State Department, and through the embassies, and so forth; or if they're being dealt with by Treasury, or if the FBI is involved in criminal investigation, and so forth, so we can bring all those elements of power together in a coordinated way so when the combatant commander says, "Mr. Secretary, here is my plan for combating international terrorism in this theater," that you would know what the people are doing in your theater. It's very important. I have got examples that I simply can't share with you for classified reasons, but where this has worked pretty well, and where it hasn't worked so well, in having the kind of people you talk about in these coordinating groups can be very, very effective. We do pretty well inside the beltway, but we can do it better outside the beltway with the combatant commands.

On the issue of service, I would - my experience has been different than Wes Clark's. I spoke at the L.A. Town Hall a couple of weeks ago, on a Monday evening, and there were a bunch of high school students there that were sponsored to be a part of the forum. And one of the questions asked was, How can we serve? And my answer is: Serve. Doesn't necessarily need to be military service, but it just needs to be service for your country. You can all think of ways to do that. I was impressed that that's what they are thinking about. And my impression visiting campuses here in the last couple of weeks is that young people do want to serve in some way, that for the most part, they understand the importance of this particular global war on terrorism. They understand that if we don't win it, the impact it can have on our way of life, and on freedom - not just here, in America, but around the world. And this is very, very important. I think it's awakened an enthusiasm that hasn't been this active in a long time. That's my impression as I travel around. My time out of Washington is rationed to some degree, so maybe Wes is getting around a lot more than I am, but that's my impression.

So my answer to the high school seniors who stood up was, "Just serve." Just as you start out your life after school, find out how you can serve. Go join the military. That's a great way to do it. Find other ways to serve, whether it's with non-governmental organizations that are trying to make life better in the world somewhere, whether it's public service, with whomever, spread out that way and have an appreciation for what it means to serve. You will get a lot of fulfillment out of that, and it's so very, very important right now. So that's - I have a little different impression about how young people are looking at this. The enthusiasm I have seen has been tremendous.

Dr. Pfaltzgraff: This is a very suitable note on which to end this opening session. I would like to thank General Myers for taking the time to be with us, to give us the benefit of his insight, his wisdom, his experience, his expertise. And also to tell us what he hopes to accomplish during his tenure as Chairman. We thank you for your service to the nation, General Myers, and we wish you the very best in achieving all of the goals that you have set forth today. Again, many thanks for being with us. Thank you. (applause)

General Myers: Thank you, thank you all.