A Q&A with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Michael Mullen
With Democrats eyeing a White House takeover next year, Congressional leaders may delay major Pentagon spending legislation until a new president takes office in hopes of providing the next commander in chief full funding for a new Iraq strategy.
Rosie the Riveter. The indelible poster harkens a feeling of the American can-do attitude. More than 60 years ago, our nation’s industrial base answered the call to produce the airplanes, tanks and jeeps that our armed forces needed to win World War II. Their efforts helped to secure our country’s freedom and put the United States on the path to world leadership and economic success.
To hear “anything and everything for missile defense” advocates bemoan funding for missile defense, which is at record high levels, you would think that Democrats do not support a strong missile defense program. The truth is quite the opposite. In fact, most of my Democratic colleagues voted for the National Missile Defense Act of 1999, announcing their commitment to deploy “an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile
attack.”
What is it that causes Members of Congress to so often forget that the most critical imperative of the federal government is to provide for the common defense?
History teaches us that the United States achieves peace through military strength. But can our country afford the military’s plans? No. During my 16 years on the House Armed Services Committee, Congress has helped the services’ proposals become more realistic. That effort is reflected in the fiscal 2009 national Defense authorization bill that the full House is set to vote on.
Having served in the U.S. Navy for 31 years, I strongly believe that the security of America is the first responsibility of Congress. In turn, this demands the requisite investment of our significant but still limited national treasure. But the proper amount of investment must be determined within the context of our overall
national security requirements.
As the House Armed Services Committee proceeds through its deliberations on the 2009 National Defense Authorization Act, I take measure of whether Congress, the Department of Defense and the administration have set the military on a true course for a restoration of our military’s combat and contingency readiness. Sadly, I believe the answer is no.
For all of the challenges in Iraq right now, we cannot lose track of the fact that it is but one piece of a much larger, more complicated struggle. We must also understand both our limited ability to force a given outcome in Iraqi efforts to forge a post-Saddam government, and the reality that many parts of that power struggle do not relate directly to our own larger struggle against al-Qaida and groups that support their violent totalitarian ideology.
