U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

i 

65–801 2011

[H.A.S.C. No. 112–30] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING 

ON

FISCAL YEAR 2012 NATIONAL DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATION BUDGET REQUESTS 

FOR U.S. EUROPEAN COMMAND, 

U.S. SOUTHERN COMMAND, AND 

U.S. NORTHERN COMMAND 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 30, 2011 
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California, Chairman 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

ROB WITTMAN, Virginia 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

JOHN C. FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

CHRIS GIBSON, New York 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

JOE HECK, Nevada 

BOBBY SCHILLING, Illinois 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

STEVEN PALAZZO, Mississippi 

ALLEN B. WEST, Florida 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

BILL OWENS, New York 

JOHN R. GARAMENDI, California 

MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii 

ROBERT L. SIMMONS II, Staff Director 

DREW WALTER, Professional Staff Member 

LEONOR TOMERO, Professional Staff Member 

LAUREN HAUHN, Research Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2011 

Page 

HEARING: 

Wednesday, March 30, 2011, Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Budget Requests for U.S. European Command, U.S. Southern Command, and U.S. Northern Command .................................................................. 1 

APPENDIX: 

Wednesday, March 30, 2011 ................................................................................... 39 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011 

FISCAL YEAR 2012 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BUDGET 

REQUESTS FOR U.S. EUROPEAN COMMAND, U.S. SOUTHERN COMMAND, AND U.S. NORTHERN COMMAND 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck,’’ a Representative from California, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services .................................................................. 1 

Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Armed Services ............................................................................ 2 

WITNESSES 

Fraser, Gen. Douglas M., USAF, Commander, U.S. Southern Command .......... 5 

Stavridis, ADM James G., USN, Commander, U.S. European Command, 

NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe ...................................................... 3 

Winnefeld, ADM James A., Jr., USN, Commander, U.S. Northern Command 

and North American Aerospace Defense Command ......................................... 7 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Fraser, Gen. Douglas M. .................................................................................. 131 

McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ .................................................................... 43 

Smith, Hon. Adam ............................................................................................ 47 

Stavridis, ADM James G. ................................................................................ 50 

Winnefeld, ADM James A., Jr. ........................................................................ 158 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Ms. Bordallo ...................................................................................................... 179 

Mr. Coffman ...................................................................................................... 180 

Mr. Franks ........................................................................................................ 179 

Mr. Larsen ........................................................................................................ 177 

Mr. Thornberry ................................................................................................. 177 

Mr. Turner ........................................................................................................ 179 

Mr. West ............................................................................................................ 180 
Page

IV 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Conaway ..................................................................................................... 185 

Ms. Giffords ....................................................................................................... 184 

Mr. Scott ............................................................................................................ 186 

Mr. Turner ........................................................................................................ 183 
(1) 

FISCAL YEAR 2012 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BUDGET REQUESTS FOR U.S. EUROPEAN COMMAND, U.S. SOUTHERN COMMAND, AND U.S. NORTHERN COMMAND 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, Wednesday, March 30, 2011. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ 

McKeon (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, 

A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Good morning. 

I am pleased to welcome Admiral James Stavridis, commander of 

U.S. European Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander 

Europe; General Douglas Fraser, commander of U.S. Southern 

Command; and Admiral James Winnefeld, commander of U.S. 

Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command. 

Gentlemen, thank you for being here, and thank you for your 

many years of devoted service for our country. 

Before we move to the matters at hand, I want to briefly address 

a big issue that is foremost in my mind and I am sure in the minds 

of my colleagues—Libya. The President has an obligation to clearly 

explain to Congress and the American people what his administration’s objectives and strategy are for our operations in Libya. He 

fulfilled this obligation in part on Monday night, but the full House 

will not have an opportunity to be briefed until this afternoon—12 

days after the start of Operation Odyssey Dawn. 

This committee will follow that up with a hearing tomorrow focused on Libya with Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. Admiral 

Stavridis, in his role as NATO’s [the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s] Supreme Allied Commander Europe, is intimately involved in the campaign against the Qaddafi regime, particularly as 

command of the operation transitions to NATO. 

Admiral, we are certainly interested in your views particularly as 

NATO assumes command of the military mission today, but I plan 

on reserving my questions on operations in Libya—and there are 

many—for this afternoon’s and tomorrow’s briefings. 

Moving to the reason we are here today, Admiral Stavridis, I am 

concerned that the administration will seek to remove one or more 

Army brigade combat teams, or BCTs, from Europe for the sake of 
2 

efficiencies that neglect the operational importance of their mission. 

I also want to highlight my concerns regarding the European 

phased adaptive approach. Missile defense is becoming a critical 

component of our relationship to our European allies, and we must 

ensure EUCOM [United States European Command] has the resources and flexibility to implement a robust defense. 

Moving to SOUTHCOM [United States Southern Command], 

General Fraser, in my mind the illicit trafficking threat is the 

greatest challenge we face in your geographic area of responsibility. 

It is also, I should add, one that requires close collaboration and 

coordination with your colleague at the table from NORTHCOM 

[United States Northern Command], as well as your interagency 

partners. 

General Fraser, your written statement highlights opportunities 

and challenges resulting from the activities of extra-regional actors 

in SOUTHCOM’s area of responsibility. China, Russia and Iran 

have been very active in Latin America through arms sales, personnel exchanges, investments and trade deals. In addition, the activities of Hezbollah in the region are very troubling. The committee would benefit from your assessment of trends of the activities and influence of foreign actors in the Western Hemisphere. 

Regarding NORTHCOM, drug-related violence is one of the foremost national security challenges directly impacting the U.S. homeland, and we need to treat it as such. I laud the heroic efforts of 

Mexican security service personnel and their public officials, who— 

and make no mistake about this—are risking their lives and the 

lives of their families in the war against these brutal criminal enterprises. 

We need to support these heroes in this fight while fully respecting the sovereignty of Mexico. I look forward to hearing your assessment, Admiral, on the progress that is being made by the Mexican authorities and what NORTHCOM is doing to support them 

and build their capacity and capabilities. 

Finally, the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution has resulted in 

the Missile Defense Agency spending $324 million less than is anticipated for this fiscal year. Next fiscal year’s request reduces the 

ground-based midcourse defense program by another 185 million. 

These are sizable cuts. We must understand how these cuts impact 

homeland missile defense effectiveness, modernization, operations 

and development. 

Gentlemen, again, thank you for appearing before us today. 

Ranking Member Smith. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McKeon can be found in the Appendix on page 43.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

WASHINGTON, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED 

SERVICES 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to join you in welcoming Admiral Winnefeld, General Fraser and Admiral Stavridis 

here. 

Appreciate you gentlemen’s service and your presence today. 
3 

My statement will be brief. I agree substantially with the issues 

that the chairman has raised and the ones we wish to hear in all 

three of your different commands. Obviously, in Southern Command we are interested in the drug trafficking, how things have 

progressed from Colombia and beyond other issues. 

NORTHCOM, your work with Mexico on similar issues, getting 

an update on that would be important. And Libya is the issue that 

is in all of our minds, which I am sure you will hear a great deal. 

I was joking that General Fraser and Admiral Winnefeld, you are 

very lucky gentleman, because most of the questions will be focused on Admiral Stavridis and take a little pressure off you, I suspect. But we will try to keep you involved as well. 

And also with European Command, we do not want to forget 

what is going on in Afghanistan, the role that NATO is playing 

there. I would be very curious to hear the Admiral’s views on how 

that is progressing, how the support from our NATO allies is going 

in Afghanistan and where he sees that situation going. 

And lastly, one issue that has not been raised, and I think it is 

particularly important in Europe, is the relationship there with 

Russia and with Turkey, the role those two countries play and how 

our relationship with each of them is going. So I would be curious 

to hear about that a little bit. 

With that, I have a statement for the record that is more detailed, which I will submit, but I will yield back and look forward 

to your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith can be found in the Appendix on page 47.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

We will follow in the order I introduced—Admiral Stavridis, General Fraser and Admiral Winnefeld. 

STATEMENT OF ADM JAMES G. STAVRIDIS, USN, COMMANDER, 

U.S. EUROPEAN COMMAND, NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER EUROPE 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Chairman, Ranking Member, thank you very 

much to all the members of the committee for offering us an opportunity to come and talk with you about all the important issues 

that were raised, and I am sure many others. 

I do have to point out if you get confused at any point in the 

hearing who the two fighter pilots at the table are, they are the 

two tall gentleman with full heads of hair. And, of course, I look 

at them both as potential donors in that regard. But it is a pleasure to be you here with two very distinguished colleagues, who are 

also very good friends. 

I would, if I may, make the observation that when I first came 

before this committee 5 years ago, I started to get to know Rep. 

Gabby Giffords. And I just wanted to comment that she during my 

time at SOUTHCOM was a true friend, and certainly all of us are 

thinking about her. 

Today, as always, it is a pleasure to be with you, as I mentioned. 

I do have a full statement for the record. If that could be entered, 

sir, I would appreciate it. 

What I would like to talk about, and very briefly, are three key 

things that U.S. European Command is focused on in sort of a gen-
4 

eral sense. One is military operations, one is partnering with our 

friends and allies, and the third is engaging with the interagency. 

In terms of military operations, if I could, I will start with just 

a word about Afghanistan. And I will do this from my perspective 

as U.S. European Command Commander and make the point that 

today in Afghanistan we have about 98,000 U.S. troops. We have 

45,000 non-U.S. troops in Afghanistan fighting alongside of us. The 

vast majority—well over 80 percent—are from the European theater. 

We also have from U.S. European Command 12,000 of our U.S. 

soldiers, who are forward deployed from Europe into Afghanistan 

and into Iraq as well. So from a military operational perspective at 

U.S. European Command, we are very much in the operational 

mode as we support those kinds of operations forward. 

In terms of how I see Afghanistan—both the chairman and the 

ranking member mentioned this—I would say, much as you heard 

from David Petraeus, I am cautiously optimistic today about our 

progress. We have 49 troop contributing nations who stand with us, 

the largest coalition in modern history, perhaps in history. And 

today, I think, we see steady progress in the security sector. 

And I would particularly point to gains in the south. While they 

are fragile, as General Petraeus has mentioned, I think that they 

are indicative of the very real possibility of our transition to Afghan-led security forces throughout Afghanistan by 2014. So from 

a U.S. European Command perspective, we will continue to support 

that effort. And again, I would say cautious optimism is my watchword on Afghanistan. 

In terms of partnership with friends and allies, there are 51 nations with whom we have mil-to-mil, military-to-military relationships from U.S. European Command. And just as one example, last 

year we conducted 33 exercises, 50,000 people involved. And these 

exercises are the component that allows us to bring these friends 

and allies forward into real operations with us. 

The interaction, the training, the coalition building that occurs 

as part of these partnerships, I believe, is fundamentally why we 

have 45,000 non-U.S. troops with us in Afghanistan today. And I 

know my geographic colleagues here would echo that building those 

kinds of relationships are part of conducting successful coalition operations today. 

And then thirdly, I mentioned the interagency. At U.S. European 

Command, we try very hard to support the Department of State as 

they do diplomacy, to support AID [the U.S. Agency for International Development] as they do development. We want to be a 

good interagency partner. 

Two quick examples. One is disaster response. Last year we were 

working to alleviate problems from wildfires both in Russia and in 

Israel. And this is an example of working with AID in that case. 

Another partner is the Drug Enforcement Administration. We 

have a counter trafficking center. It is a very reduced version of 

what General Fraser operates out of JIATF [the Joint Interagency 

Task Force] South in Key West, to try and get at some of these 

trafficking challenges as they move through our region and come 

back to threaten the United States. 
5 

So those three things are the key areas in which we are engaged 

at the moment. As well, we are looking at ballistic missile threat 

and what we can do to develop the phased adaptive approach. We 

are looking at relations with Russia. We are looking at Israel and 

Turkey, important countries in our region. And we are also thinking about cyber and terrorism. So it is a very full plate for us at 

U.S. European Command. 

I will close, Chairman and Ranking Member, with just a word 

about Libya. One is administrative, in a sense, to simply clarify my 

role in terms of operations in Libya. From a U.S. perspective, those 

are conducted by Africa Command, headed very ably by General 

Carter Ham, who many of you know. 

My job from a U.S. perspective is to support General Ham and 

to move U.S. European Command forces forward for the coalition 

operations that have been conducted for the last 5 weeks. 

In my NATO hat as the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, I 

am essentially the operations officer for NATO. So in that hat we 

are now taking on this mission in Libya as it is transitioning today 

with flights over Libya, with the air tasking order generated by 

NATO, and taking on the important missions that were outlined 

under the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, thank you for giving me an opportunity to lay out a few thoughts initially. I look forward to your 

questions. I would like to close by saying thank you to the Congress and thank you to this committee for your support to all of our 

men and women. We could not operate a single day without the 

support of this committee, and I thank each one of you personally, 

sir. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Stavridis can be found in 

the Appendix on page 50.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

And without objection, each of your full statements will be introduced into the record. 

General Fraser. 

STATEMENT OF GEN. DOUGLAS M. FRASER, USAF, 

COMMANDER, U.S. SOUTHERN COMMAND 

General FRASER. Chairman, thank you. Ranking Member Smith, 

thank you also, and distinguished members of the committee. 

It is my great pleasure and privilege to be here and have the opportunity to discuss United States Southern Command and our accomplishments over the past year, plus our future efforts in Latin 

America and the Caribbean. 

But first, before I continue, I would like to, as Admiral Stavridis 

did, recognize the absence of Congresswoman Giffords from this 

committee. As Admiral Stavridis said, she has been a stalwart supporter of United States Southern Command, of Air Forces Southern, and we wish her a speedy recovery. 

I am also pleased to have my wife with me today. She is a great 

partner. She is a steadfast advocate for our military families, and 

she is a remarkable representative of United States Southern Command and all our military spouses throughout our armed forces. 

[Applause.] 
6 

I am also pleased, as Admiral Stavridis mentioned also, to share 

a table with my friends and my counterparts. Admiral Stavridis, 

my predecessor, left a real legacy of interagency integration. He 

talked about that just a minute ago in European Command. That 

legacy remains in United States Southern Command and is a vital 

part of our organization. 

Admiral Winnefeld and I have been working diligently to coordinate our respective activities in Mexico and the Central American 

region, as well as across our combatant command boundaries, to 

ensure that there is no disconnect and there is no seam in U.S. 

military engagement within the hemisphere. 

Over the past year, United States Southern Command worked in 

close collaboration with other U.S. federal agencies and our international partners to respond to natural disasters like the earthquakes in Haiti and Chile and to address the ongoing threats to 

regional security as well. 

This year, with the continued support of Congress, we will continue to promote United States’ national and regional security interests through enduring partnerships. Much as Admiral Stavridis 

mentioned, partnerships and the building of partnerships remain a 

vital part of our mission and a vital role that we continue to pursue 

throughout the region. 

But we are really focused on two direct issues, two direct challenges. One is the ever present nature of natural disasters within 

the region like those we witnessed last year and then, Chairman, 

as you and the ranking member mentioned, the ongoing threat 

posed by transnational criminal organizations and the illicit activities they pursue. 

While we remain prepared to conduct humanitarian assistance 

and disaster relief operations whenever the need arises, 

transnational criminal organizations represent the evolving challenge to regional and hemispheric security. 

These transnational criminal organizations engage in illicit trafficking of drugs, arms, money and people across the porous borders 

throughout the region, into the United States, and also abroad into 

Africa and into Europe. They do not respect national sovereignty, 

laws, governments or human life. 

Nowhere is this more evident than in Central America, which is 

besieged by gangs and transnational criminal organizations, who 

conduct illicit trafficking with near impunity. But the direct result 

of their activity is unprecedented levels of violence and an erosion 

of citizen safety. The northern triangle of Guatemala, El Salvador 

and Honduras is the deadliest zone in the world outside of war 

zones. 

The newly formed Central American Citizens Security Partnership announced by President Obama last week builds upon the existing interagency efforts and leverages the capacities of partners 

such as Canada, Colombia and Mexico to help Central America respond to the challenges of organized crime, drug trafficking and violence. U.S. Southern Command will continue to support this effort. 

In closing, I would also like to thank the committee for your support and funding the construction of our new headquarters in 

Miami. My good friend, Admiral Stavridis, had a large role to play 
7 

in that, and we are the beneficiary of all his hard work as well as 

yours. 

This state-of-the-art building enhances our internal and external 

collaboration. It improves our ability to conduct interagency operations, and it raises the quality of life of our personnel. So on behalf of the men and women of United States Southern Command, 

thank you for your support. 

And I would also like to close by thanking Congress and the 

members of this committee for your continued support of our men 

and women in uniform. Much like Admiral Stavridis said, we could 

not do our job without your constant support. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, thank you for your continued 

support. 

[The prepared statement of General Fraser can be found in the 

Appendix on page 131.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Admiral Winnefeld. 

STATEMENT OF ADM JAMES A. WINNEFELD, JR., USN, COMMANDER, U.S. NORTHERN COMMAND AND NORTH AMERICAN AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member 

Smith, distinguished members of the Armed Services Committee, 

thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you this 

morning. 

I will echo my colleagues on at least two points. One is that I 

am delighted to be alongside these two fine gentlemen this morning, including my longtime friend, Admiral Jim Stavridis, and my 

very good friend and close partner, Doug Fraser, in the Western 

Hemisphere arena. 

I also would like to echo their thoughts on the absence of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who has been such a strong supporter of NORTHCOM and in particular NORAD [the North American Aerospace Defense Command] and our air sovereignty mission. 

As the commander of U.S. NORTHCOM responsible for the defense of the United States and in the case of NORAD for the air 

defense of North America, it is my privilege to work with the talented team of men and women executing a uniquely diverse set of 

homeland defense, civil support and security cooperation missions 

in Colorado Springs. 

Our daily efforts include countering terrorism and transnational 

criminal organizations, preparing to support our federal and state 

partners in the wake of a natural or man-made disaster, air defense against both external and internal threats, maritime and ballistic missile defense, and, of course, a growing focus on the Arctic. 

I would like to highlight two of these areas in advance of our discussion this morning. First, the tragic events in Japan over the last 

several weeks highlight the importance of being prepared to respond to disasters, including those providing little or no notice, 

such as earthquakes, and those involving accidental or intentional 

release of harmful substances, as in Japan’s case their release of 

radionuclides. 

U.S. NORTHCOM plays a key role in our nation’s response to 

these disasters, principally in support of FEMA’s [the Federal 
8 

Emergency Management Agency’s] role as the lead federal agency 

providing support to the affected states by bringing either additional capacity or additional capabilities to bear that our partners 

may lack. 

Time is our enemy in these disasters, and we search every day 

for ways to become more agile to meet the needs of our partners. 

We also stress our supporting role in these disasters, and I am 

pleased to be able to report to you that we have made considerable 

strides over the last year in achieving unity of command and control over state and federal military forces that might respond together in the wake of a disaster. 

I can also report that NORTHCOM’s relationship with the National Guard, who is such a capable partner and on whom I rely 

so much for my mission in several key areas, is superb. 

The second area I would like to highlight is U.S. NORTHCOM’s 

support to the ongoing struggle to disrupt and dismantle the 

transnational criminal organizations, otherwise known as TCOs, 

that are having such corrosive effects within our hemisphere. We 

work with law enforcement agencies within the United States and 

in conjunction with U.S. SOUTHCOM in support of the efforts of 

our partner nations in the hemisphere. 

President Obama and President Caldero ́n of Mexico have underscored our shared responsibilities as nations—on the U.S. side of 

the border to reduce drug consumption and the illicit flow of arms 

and money, and on the Mexican side to interdict drugs going north 

and to strengthen the rule of law so that criminals are put and 

kept in jail. 

The Mexican government has displayed exemplary moral, physical and political courage in undertaking this important struggle, 

as you pointed out, Chairman McKeon, because they know this is 

about the future of Mexico. And I take my hat off to them for this. 

The Mexican military has been asked by its civilian leadership 

to join with Mexican law enforcement agencies to support this 

struggle in the right way, respectful of Mexico’s democratic ideals 

and the nation’s commitment to the rule of law. 

It has been a difficult struggle, as you pointed out. Since December 2006, 35,000 Mexicans have lost their lives in TCO-related violence. The criminality extends far beyond drugs to extortion, robbery, kidnapping and trafficking in persons. 

I salute Mexico’s police and security forces for their courage, skill 

and determination and for the progress they have made in building 

institutions like the federal police and in taking down over two 

dozen of the most wanted criminals in their country, progress for 

which they do not always get the credit they deserve. 

Today the Mexican military is confronting concurrent challenges—how to counter a sophisticated, unconventional threat by 

integrating intelligence and operations, how to work jointly with 

each other and with their interagency partners, and how to fully 

inculcate respect for human rights into every operation. 

We know this is hard, because we have been down the same 

road, and some days we are still on the same road. So I tell my 

capable Mexican partners that we don’t know it all, we have made 

our own mistakes along the way, and we seek the kind of engagement that helps them benefit from our experience. 
9 

But while I always want to do more to help, I want to state publicly and very clearly that the first and most important principle 

we observe in this struggle is respect for Mexican sovereignty. We 

have much to offer, but Mexico is always, always in the lead in 

Mexico. 

The Mexican government has a strategy. They have defined with 

us a substantive framework to guide our cooperation, and they 

have invited us to work with them to support their efforts. But, 

again, they are always in the lead in their country. 

If together we can maintain our resolve, if we can be responsive 

to their requests, if we can work effectively together to support 

their operational progress, and if we can continue to make progress 

on our own side of the border, then we have a good chance of carrying the day against the TCOs. And if not, the corrosive effects 

of the TCOs will continue to pose a danger to the citizens of both 

of our nations. 

I want to thank you, as my colleagues did, both the committee 

and a very capable staff for your steadfast support for our men and 

women, both in uniform and in civilian clothes, who work hard on 

these and many other difficult problems every single day. 

Once again, thanks for the opportunity to appear today, and I 

look forward to our discussion. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Winnefeld can be found in 

the Appendix on page 158.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Admiral Stavridis? ‘‘Stavridis?’’ Boy, oh, boy. At last year’s 

EUCOM posture hearing, you strongly advocated for retaining four 

Army combat teams, or BCTs, in Europe. You said that all four 

BCTs are required to enable both rotations in support of overseas 

contingency operations and building partnership capacity activities 

with our European allies. 

The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review backed you up on this, 

but that final decision would be made pending a review. What is 

the status of the review? And when will the decision be announced? 

And do you still strongly support retaining all forward BCTs? And 

if not, what has changed? And what are the impacts if one or more 

BCTs is relocated? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Thank you, Chairman. 

First of all, to focus on what these BCTs do, brigade combat 

teams, I think they fulfill essentially four key functions. They provide reassurance. They provide deterrence. They are essential in 

our training process that we spoke of with our partners and allies 

in Europe. And as we can see today, they are very engaged in operations, again, 12,000 folks forward even as we speak. 

In terms of the review, it is still ongoing. I think it is coming to 

a conclusion soon. And it is not simply focused, sir, on the BCTs. 

It is really a larger look at the overall structure in Europe, which 

as you know has decreased dramatically since the Cold War, coming down from some 400,000 total troops to about 80,000 today, a 

75 percent decrease. 

So we will see, I think, the results of a final look, which is being 

conducted at this point. All the inputs are in, and I think final decisions will be announced, I would guess, soon. But I don’t have visibility as to when that final decision would come. 
10 

Overall, I am satisfied that my input and my voice has been 

heard through the process, and I am confident that I will be supportive of the result that comes out when it is announced. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

General Fraser, China, Russia and Iran have been extremely active in Latin America. Several left-leaning countries, such as Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Bolivia, have forged ties with the anti-U.S. 

leaders in Libya, North Korea, and elsewhere. Alarmingly, 

Hezbollah and other radical groups appear to have a growing presence in the region. 

How significant is the influence of non-Western Hemisphere actors in the region? And how would you assess our relationships in 

comparison? What can SOUTHCOM and its interagency partners 

do to maintain strong relationships in the region and counter foreign interferences? 

General FRASER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We see a growing 

influence, but it varies country by country, if you look at those external actors. But it is still primarily focused on political, diplomatic, and commercial relationships within all those countries. And 

that is a normal international process, if you will, and that in 

many cases, especially as we look at China, is a two-way street, 

where countries within the region are also looking to engage with 

China on a more robust basis. 

Russia’s focus primarily continues to be commercial and diplomatic, but there are also arms sales that they are continuing to 

pursue within the region. In most cases, that is providing opportunities for other countries as they look to modernize their forces 

within the region. 

My biggest concern within the arms supplies that Russia is providing is the number of automatic weapons being provided to Venezuela and the potential that those could be used in other places, 

not that there is a connection to Venezuela, it is just the fact that 

they could find their ways into other hands. 

Regarding Iran, very similar, if you will, primarily diplomatic 

and commercial, in many ways from our assessment, looking to 

limit their isolation in the international community and also support anti-U.S. and reduce U.S. influence not only within the region, 

but also in other parts of the globe. 

Hezbollah and Hamas do have organizations resident in the region. I have not seen them growing in any capacity, and I see primarily any support that they are giving is financial support, principally back to parent organizations in the Middle East. I have not 

seen connections that go beyond that to date. 

What are we doing about that? We continue to engage very 

robustly with our partner militaries throughout the region. We 

have very good military-to-military relations with all those partners within the region. The ones that we have minimal relations 

with today are primarily Venezuela and Bolivia, and that is more 

their choice than ours. We would like to continue to engage with 

them. They are choosing not to engage with us. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. And we are happy to have 

your wife here with you today. 

You are more than welcome. Thank you. 
11 

Admiral Winnefeld, how are the Mexican security services doing 

in their fight against these viciously violent transnational communist—or criminal organizations? What is NORTHCOM doing to 

support them and build their capacity and capabilities, while maintaining an appropriate respect for our sovereign neighbor? Is there 

something more that this committee can do to help regarding either resources or statutory flexibility? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I 

would say that it is important to understand, as we all do, that the 

Mexican security services are up against a very sophisticated, very 

ruthless, and very well financed threat, a series of threats, actually, several different organizations. 

I did a check recently, and I think most of the assessments are that about $40 billion flows across our border each year into Mexico to sustain these transnational criminal organizations. And even 

though they are not military forces, if you took that $40 billion and 

ranked it among the world’s militaries, it would come in in the top 

ten for the amount of money that is potentially supplying these organizations. So it is a well-financed threat, largely by our drug demand in the United States. 

So the Mexican security forces, the security police, the military 

are up against a very, very sophisticated and a ruthless threat. I 

give them a great deal of credit, though, because they are undergoing some very difficult transformations. 

They have taken a force that was a very conventional force, that 

candidly was mostly focused on support for natural disasters, and 

they are gradually transforming this—and I would say very successfully—into a force that is capable of very regular operations 

against this sophisticated threat. 

It is a long journey. We have been on the same journey ourselves 

over the last 10 years. And it is difficult to transform. And they are 

doing a good job. 

I would say that they have had some serious successes in the last 

16 months or so. They have taken down 28 of the major criminals, 

lead criminals, inside Mexico. Most recently, their takedown of 

some of the people who were involved in the murder of Agent Zapata down in Mexico was actually a very sophisticated operation 

that was quite impressive by our standards. So I think they are 

coming a long way. 

As in any struggle like this, things are probably going to get 

worse before they get better, and we are seeing that with the violence in Mexico, not only TCO-on-TCO violence, but violence that 

is basically an outgrowth of the fact that the Caldero ́n administration has taken such a courageous stand against these organizations. 

At NORTHCOM, we do everything we can to help our partners. 

We have great respect for their sovereignty. And in that light, I 

would leave it to the Mexican authorities to disclose any of the particular details of the support that we provide. 

But in general, it is sharing the lessons learned that we have 

learned so hard over the last 10 years of similar struggles elsewhere in the world from which our Mexican partners can benefit. 

And I would include in that how you do planning, how you do special operations, and also how you carefully observe human rights. 
12 

We have a very good partnership with our friends in Mexico, and 

I have great respect for their efforts, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Ranking Member Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just have two questions. The chairman actually covered a number of the questions that I was interested in. The first one is on 

actually behalf of Congresswoman Giffords. I am trying to ask her 

questions, get her issues in as the ranking member here until she 

is able to come back. 

And I thank you, gentlemen, for your kind words on her behalf. 

She is doing much, much better, and we are all looking forward to 

her return. 

And I was down in her district last week, down at DavisMonthan and Fort Huachuca. And she has one specific question, as 

I think both the SOUTHCOM, NORTHCOM people know, and that 

is about the Air and Space Operations Center. 

The 612th is at Davis-Monthan, which is responsible, General 

Fraser, for the Southern Command. The 601st is in Florida and is 

responsible for the Northern Command. And the Air Force has 

made the decision and the military has made the decision to combine the two. 

And there are a number of questions about that. I had the opportunity to spend some time down there and visit the center they 

have at Davis-Monthan. And it is very impressive. It is being updated as we speak and seems like a very capable center. And, obviously, they are worried about losing that, in terms of how that combination is going. 

So a couple of questions about that. First of all, Congressman 

Giffords’ staff has requested from the Air Force sort of an analysis 

of this issue. How is it going to work to combine two operation centers in that way? And what are the criteria that the Air Force and 

the two commands are going to be weighing to determine which 

one wins, if you will? She has not yet received that from the Air 

Force. 

So if you could work with perhaps both of your commands with 

the Air Force to get that analysis of that to her office and to mine, 

that would be very helpful. 

And then, second specific question on that—and it is for both of 

you, actually—what are the factors that you are weighing in terms 

of determining what the best place to do this would be? And then, 

also, how do you think it is going to work having two separate commands with the same operation center? 

General FRASER. Ranking Member Smith, if I could start, it is a 

discussion that is still within the Air Force, and it really relies primarily within the Air Force, as they are working their way through 

to answer many of the questions that you are asking. The capability that is resident in Air Force South is very significant. 

But I am also comfortable, as the Air Force works its way 

through this, that they understand our needs. And I have had that 

discussion with the chief of staff of the Air Force, as well as the 

commander of Air Combat Command, and they are working to 

make sure that our needs, not only when it comes time for crisis, 

but also as it supports our training and our exercise requirements, 
13 

that they are integrating those into their matrix as they determine 

how best to support this command. 

The benefit, as I see also, though, is that Air Force South’s staff 

will remain a part of Southern Command. It is not a combination 

completely of the two organizations. And as a result, we have an 

Air Force component that is focused and dedicated on continuing 

to build relationships with our partner Air Forces within the region. 

So I don’t have the specific analysis either. The Air Force is still 

working its way through that. I still understand that it will be a 

little bit of time before they come to an answer on that. 

Mr. SMITH. It would be good to see that, because my concern, as 

I was down there—and forgive me, I am forgetting for the moment 

the general’s name who runs the base—Lieutenant General Spears, 

who showed me around—they have incredible capability there. 

I happened to be there when the President was down in the 

SOUTHCOM region, so they were showing me all that was involved in planning for that, all the technology and capability that 

they have there. It also has some flexibility to be a center for other, 

you know, contingencies, if those come up. 

So I think it is an incredible capability that we would hate to 

lose after having built it, and I would be very, very interested in 

getting the criteria. You know, what is the Air Force weighing in 

terms of what they need in a joint operations center? 

Because that is not clear at this point how they are going to put 

this together, and I and my staff have some concerns that criteria 

that might not be the most important from an operational standpoint, but could be from a budgetary standpoint, might be given 

higher priority than we would like, so I would love to see what the 

criteria are. 

Admiral Winnefeld, if you had anything to add on that? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Yes, sir. We will work together to ask the 

Air Force to provide those criteria. They have their own criteria 

that they are using. And I don’t have full visibility on those at the 

moment. 

I would say that both of those air operations centers are very capable centers. The one at Tyndall Air Force Base, of course, which 

is the NORAD region operations center, is very capable and has excess capacity and that sort of thing as well. 

The things that matter the most to me are that NORAD has a 

daily vibrant mission in which literally many time-critical decisions 

are made on a daily basis that affect the security of this country 

from both external and internal threats. So in any case, whichever 

way the decision falls, I would want to make sure there was minimal disruption in our ability to execute those daily decisions. 

I would want to make—one of the things that is important to me 

is that my commander, whose base is there in Tyndall, is able to 

have rapid access to his air operations center in case he needs to 

be the one making those split-second decisions. 

And it is very useful for me to have the National Guard, frankly, 

running that operations center, because they bring such an extended timeframe of deep experience that is embedded in that center over a course of years, rather than a constant inflow and outflow of people. 
14 

Having said that, I would tell you that General Fraser and I 

have discussed this. We are comfortable that either way this decision goes, we will be able to manage it and that we will work very 

closely together to bend over backwards to make sure that the 

other guy is supported, you know, whoever absorbs the other’s center. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. I appreciate it. 

General FRASER. And, Congressman, if I might, I have had this 

similar discussion with General Schwartz, as well as General Fraser, the Commander of Air Force Combat Command. And I am confident that they understand our requirements and are working 

very diligently to meet those requirements as they look at this design. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. I appreciate that. I will actually hold the 

other question that I had for the end. That took a little longer than 

I expected, so I will yield back to the chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Bartlett. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Gentlemen, thank you very much for your long 

service to our country. 

Our founding fathers were very well acquainted with the exercise 

of the king’s army. And so it would be expected that they would 

want to preclude any such use of the army in the new country that 

they were establishing. And so it is no surprise what we find in the 

Constitution. 

In Article I, Section 8, which describes the prerogatives of Congress, it says Congress shall have power to declare war, to make 

rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval 

forces, to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws 

of the union, suppress insurrection, and repel invasions. 

And then in Section 2 of the Constitution—Article II of the Constitution, where they define the responsibilities of the President, 

there is only one brief reference to the relationship of the President 

to the military, and that is in Section 2 of Article II. 

And it says there the President shall be the Commander in Chief 

of the Army and the Navy of the United States and of the militia 

of the several states when called into the actual service of the 

United States. That calling into service is the prerogative of Congress, you note, from Article I of the Constitution. 

In 1973, during the height of the Cold War, it was clear that 

there had to be some interpretation of the intent of our founding 

fathers, because Congress clearly would not have time to be convened to declare war, if we were attacked by the Soviet Union. And 

so our two houses drafted the War Powers Resolution. 

And in it, it said it is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill 

the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States. 

I see this as kind of a recapitulation of the Constitution of the 

United States. 

But to make the intent of our founding fathers consistent with 

the reality of 1973, they said that the President could call our 

armed forces into combat under three circumstances: a declaration 

of war; specific statutory authorization; or, three, a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territory or 

possessions, or its armed forces—this third, of course, relevant to 
15 

the Cold War and the threat of a bolt out of the blue that everybody quite expected could happen then. 

Then, Section 3 of that says the President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United 

States forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances. 

Help me understand which of these three were invoked in committing our troops to the military and why no time was available 

to consult Congress when there was plenty of time to consult with 

the United Nations and the Arab League. 

Do we now, in fact—and this isn’t the first President, by the way, 

that—by the way, the War Powers Act was passed over the veto 

of the President. That means that more than two-thirds of the Senate and the House, supported by their constituents, believed that 

this ought to become the law of the land. 

This isn’t the first President to use the military, I think, in violation of the Constitution and of the War Powers Act. What is your 

understanding of which of these three circumstances, situations in 

the War Powers Act is relevant to our involvement in Libya? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Congressman, I have not analyzed that aspect of things. And I think, frankly, the question would be best referred to the Department of Defense and potentially to the White 

House. I mean, it sounds to me like it is an issue under discussion 

between the executive and the legislative branch. 

My focus—if you are referring specifically to Libya—as a U.S. 

Combatant Commander, my job was to provide forces for General 

Carter Ham, who is the AFRICOM [United States Africa Command] commander, who then employed those forces. From a NATO 

perspective, I operate under a distinctly different chain of command, and the authorities would be completely different. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Appreciate your response, and thank you very 

much. 

Yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Reyes. 

Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, gentlemen, welcome, and thank you for your service and for 

doing a great job in your respective positions, which at this point 

are vital and critical to our national security. 

I was on a trip with the chairman and Congressman Kline. We 

visited Pakistan and Afghanistan and then stopped at NATO headquarters. And for the members, I would strongly recommend that, 

when you visit Afghanistan, you stop in NATO, because the admiral and the ambassador can really add to the visit and give you a 

good perspective on the critical role of NATO and the things that 

are going on. 

I don’t know if you want to comment. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I would just very much echo that. And it is 

a very logical stopping point coming in or out of Afghanistan, Iraq, 

Pakistan. We would love to have you and have a chance to show 

you how the alliance is engaged in this. And I thank you for mentioning that, sir. 

Mr. REYES. Thank you. 
16 

And for General Fraser and Admiral Winnefeld, I just was part 

of a trip last week that went through—well, we went to Colombia, 

Panama, Guatemala, and Mexico. And I would appreciate if you 

would comment—and I know, General Fraser, I think it was you 

that mentioned the triangle of concern, which includes Guatemala—if you would comment on the challenges that we are facing 

there. 

Ambassador McFarland expressed his concern about the situation in Guatemala and the kinds of challenges that that government is facing as a result of the drug trafficking organizations now 

using it as a staging area and a transshipment area. 

Panama as well is kind of the crossroads where those organizations decide which way they are going to bring narcotics into the 

U.S., whether the Caribbean through Mexico or along the Pacific. 

So if both of you would comment on that, I would appreciate it. 

I think it would be very important to get your perspective. 

General FRASER. Thank you, Congressman Reyes. Let me step 

back, if I could, for just a minute and then explain the issue as I 

see it. And it is a very nontraditional military requirement and 

concern, because it is an irregular force in a transnational criminal 

organization. 

Our roles are very limited, but what we see from a cocaine standpoint—and I will talk specifically cocaine—the majority of cocaine 

is still produced in the northern part of South America in the Andean Ridge. 

It transits up along the east and west coast of Central America 

and first makes its first stop somewhere along that isthmus—Panama, Costa Rica, some in Nicaragua, primarily right now in Honduras, about 40 percent of it, and then into Guatemala. 

Once it arrives on land, then it continues to transit up through 

the isthmus of Central America into Mexico and then into the 

United States across the southwest border. We estimate that 

roughly about 60 to 65 percent of the cocaine that is produced transits that route. 

How that manifests itself within Central America, then, is in increasing episodes of violence. And my best way to describe that is 

if we use U.N.-based figures, in Iraq last year the homicide rate or 

violent death rate was 14 per 100,000. In Guatemala last year it 

was 48 per 100,000. If you go to some specific cities, Guatemala 

City, it would approach 100. In Honduras it was 77 per 100,000. 

In El Salvador it was 68 per 100,000. 

We continue to work with Northern Command, with our partner 

militaries and our interagency partners, because the real solution 

for this is an interagency-the Department of State has a Central 

American region security initiative working not only to support our 

militaries, but law enforcement as well as judiciary and bring up 

the capacities within those countries. 

And it is us all working together on a regional basis that we will 

address that problem. And those are the efforts that we are taking 

on today. 

Admiral WINNEFELD. I would add, sir, that, you know, the complexities of that region are enormous, particularly the Mexico-Guatemala-Belize border region, and General Fraser and I work very 
17 

closely on that region to understand the complexities and to look 

at the way ahead for addressing them. 

I would say that my Mexican partners are very sophisticated. 

They are very aware of what is happening down there. They are 

approaching this strategically. They know that they need to get at 

that problem. 

They have a capacity issue, for one thing. They do not have a 

huge military, and they have their hands full right now in the 

northeast in places like Ciudad Jua ́ rez and Monterrey, and they 

want to get that violence under control as best they can before they 

really open another front. And I respect them for that. 

We are working to see if there is any way that we can help them 

down there. And in fact, General Fraser and I, again, work closely 

together on that very, very complex region. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Admirals, General, thank you for your service. I share the 

concerns of Chairman McKeon and Congressman Bartlett over the 

new war that America is in in Libya, but today it is budget request. But we need to address the concerns of the American people 

concerning Libya, I think, as soon as possible. 

Admiral Stavridis, there are success stories, and I appreciate you 

bringing up in Afghanistan that there are now 45,000 troops largely from NATO. And I have had the privilege of meeting with troops 

from Bulgaria, Romania, and Slovakia. It is really encouraging to 

see this, and the American people need to know how we do have 

a 49-nation coalition of real troops involved from such remarkable 

places as Mongolia. 

With that in mind, could you tell us what are the contributions 

of the troops? The American people need to know when there is 

success. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Thank you, sir. I would also throw out a couple of other interesting countries that are in this—Tonga, El Salvador, as well as all of our kind of traditional partners, and we are 

also in discussion with other nations. This really has become a 

global effort. 

In addition to the 49 countries with troops there, there are actually a total of well over 80 countries that are contributing financially to develop Afghanistan. 

In terms of what our partners are doing, the first thing I would 

mention is that they are taking casualties. They are in this fight. 

Tragically, we have lost about 1,400 of our fine young men and 

women in Afghanistan. 

We have 98,000 U.S., 45,000 Allied, so two-to-one, you would expect the allies would have lost about 700 killed in action. The allies 

have lost 900 killed in action, so they are suffering casualties at 

a higher rate per capita than we are here in the United States in 

many instances. 

They are also bringing very specific skills across a range of areas, 

and the one I would highlight for the committee today is training. 

If you think about how we are going to succeed in Afghanistan, I 

believe we will train our way to success. 
18 

We are beginning a transition this summer that will run through 

2014, and I believe that the ability to make that transition is dependent on effective Afghan security forces. Today there are 

275,000 of them. 

They are being trained very much by the U.S., but also by our 

coalition partners, who bring discrete skill sets at everything ranging from orienteering to aircraft maintenance. And so this training 

effort, led by Lieutenant General Bill Caldwell—many of you have 

met with General Caldwell—is an area in which we are encouraging our allies to bring additional forces. 

And here I would highlight both the Canadians and the Dutch 

have recently increased the numbers of troops that they are going 

to commit to the training mission. So that would be the one that 

I would particularly draw a line under, in addition to the work 

around the nation in the patrolling. 

Finally, in a command-and-control sense, although we all know 

General Petraeus is our commander, his deputy is British, his chief 

of staff is French. As you look around Afghanistan to the leaders 

in each of the regional command areas, Kabul is commanded by a 

Turk. In the far west we see an Italian in command. In the north 

we see a German in command, in addition to U.S. commanders in 

the south and the east. 

So in command and control, in casualties, in many discrete missions—I would highlight training in particular—I think the contributions of the allies are noteworthy and part of, I believe, my 

cautious optimism for success in Afghanistan. 

Mr. WILSON. And for peace in the future, American forces working together, the interoperability, people need to know how positive 

this is going to be. 

Another success I saw with Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo 

was to visit the new bases of MK [Mihail Kogalniceanu] Airbase in 

Romania, Novacella in Bulgaria, first time in the 1,225-year history 

of Bulgaria that they have invited a foreign military presence. 

What is the status of those bases? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Both of them are part of our training programs and are very effective for us to move rotational forces to engage with not only the troops of those nations, but other troops 

from Eastern Europe, the Baltics and the Balkans, so very much 

part of our training infrastructure in Europe in nations that are 

very supportive of our missions in Afghanistan, in Europe and in 

the alliance. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sir. 

Mr. WILSON. And appreciate all of your service. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

And, gentlemen, thank you so much for being here. Thank you 

for your service as well. 

Admiral Stavridis, I wonder if you could talk a little bit about 

the concerns that we all feel in terms of our economic situation, but 

more particularly in terms of our European allies. Clearly, they 
19 

have been affected by the economy in their countries, and so there 

are demands put on them. 

And I am wondering if you are worried at all about NATO’s readiness due to any European cutbacks or of other allies. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Thank you, Congresswoman. I would start, 

actually, with some good news, and then I will move to the bad 

news. 

The good news is that our European allies, although they are, 

like the United States, going through economic challenges, they 

have great resources. The GDP [gross domestic product] of Europe 

is about $14 trillion, very similar to that of the United States, so 

if you put United States’ GDP and Europe’s GDP together, about 

$28 trillion to $30 trillion, which is roughly half of the global GDP. 

So the point is we are lucky that our close allies in Europe live 

in prosperous societies, who can contribute to defense. 

Now, the bad news is that many of our allies are not meeting the 

NATO standard of spending at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense. And so some are—the United Kingdom and France and Turkey and Greece—and a handful are, but the majority are not. So 

I am worried. 

And I believe that we here in the United States, because we pay 

a much higher percentage of our GDP for our defense, need to be 

emphatic with our European allies that they should spend at least 

the minimum NATO 2 percent. 

At the military-to-military level, I carry that message often, emphatically and very directly, frankly, not only to military counterparts, but also to political actors in each of the nations in the alliance. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Is there a concern as well that the plate is just getting too full as well for NATO? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I think that is a concern everywhere today. 

And again, in my view a minimum spending goal of 2 percent is 

very reasonable, and one that, broadly speaking, the allies should 

be able to support. 

So I will continue to press that emphatically. Secretary Gates 

pushes that very emphatically. Secretary Clinton pushes that very 

emphatically. And we are all leaning forward to make sure our allies do the right thing in this regard. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Could you turn for a second to the potential cooperation between 

the U.S. and Russia and any changes that you are seeing in terms 

of their military modernization efforts and how that is affecting the 

EUCOM environment, the AOR [area of responsibility]? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, ma’am, I can. In terms of where we are 

cooperating with Russia, there is actually a wide spectrum of activities, some of which you may not generally be aware of. One is 

piracy. Russia is operating ships off the coast of Africa that are 

working very closely with NATO and European Union ships, along 

with those of other nations. 

Another area is counterterrorism. Russia has been subject to 

many terrible terrorist attacks, and we are cooperating with them 

in that regard. Counternarcotics, Russia has a very disturbing 

opium and heroin addiction problem, and we are in constant dia-
20 

logue with them to try and see how we can work against the trafficking of heroin in particular, which comes from Afghanistan. 

We also, as we know, recently signed an arms control agreement 

with Russia. 

And then, finally, I would add—— 

Mrs. DAVIS. And I guess can you go on to the bad news? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yeah, as always, there are going to be areas 

where we don’t agree with Russia. The situation in Georgia is one 

of those, for example, where we stand for the territorial integrity 

of Georgia. 

But I think, on balance, overall, certainly compared to the Cold 

War—and, I would argue, compared to 3 or 4 years ago—these 

zones of cooperation are, in fact, in place and expanding. The one 

we are looking to and exploring is missile defense, and that is out 

in the future, but it is certainly part of the dialogue today between 

the United States and Russia. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

If I could just very quickly, Admiral Winnefeld, on the Merida 

Initiative, which we know is now not—well, I guess the initiative 

really ended in fiscal year 2010. And we now have another security 

assistance program beyond Merida. How important is that assistance? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. I think the Merida program is very, very 

important. And there has been some criticism lately that we 

haven’t delivered fast enough. And part of that has to do with simple physics, and that is, if you are going to buy a helicopter, the 

helicopter is on an assembly line and it takes a while to get that 

helicopter built. 

And I would also add, though, that Secretary Gates has accelerated, by the way, the program for some of these helicopters to Mexico, which I think is a very helpful step. 

But helping our Mexican partners with equipment is one of many 

things that we would like to do with them, including sharing our 

experience over the last few years, things that we have learned. 

But the equipment is certainly important. Particularly mobility, 

helicopters, night-vision goggles, that sort of thing is really priceless to be able to help our partners with that kind of support. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Turner. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, thank you for your leadership and for your service. 

I appreciate your being here before us today and discussing these 

very important issues. 

I wanted to echo what Mr. Wilson has said and our chairman 

about concerns of the operation in Libya. It is a mission that I am 

concerned as to whether or not its goals are clear. And also, I am 

a little concerned and believe it is unclear as to who we are supporting in this conflict. 

But I know that is not, as Mr. Wilson had said, the subject matter of this hearing, and we are going to continue to pursue that 

issue later today. But I do think it does need to be acknowledged 

as the concerns of this committee as we go forward. 
21 

I would like to talk—Admiral Stavridis, you were talking about 

the issue of the drug trade, the effects of the problems in Russia. 

I appreciate that you and I last month had an opportunity to meet 

during my trip to NATO and in Brussels. I appreciate your discussions there about the drug trade. 

So I would like to revisit that with you. General Petraeus has indicated that, you know, one-third to perhaps, you know, 40 percent 

of the Taliban’s funding comes from the drug trade. So intuitively, 

we believe that if you can reduce the drug trade, we can reduce the 

money that buys weapons and explosives that fund the insurgency. 

However, the to-do list of how we address this problem extends 

well beyond the Department of Defense. With your prior experience, I would like to know, you know, how do you believe that we 

are in doing in going after this problem? And are we hampered by 

Department of Defense or NATO limitations in counternarcotics 

missions? 

And also, General Fraser, you know, there are differing viewpoints about whether the counter-drug strategy in the region has 

been successful as touted. From your perspective, what have been 

the successes, the challenges, and shortcomings of the regional 

counternarcotics efforts? 

Admiral. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Thank you, sir. And thank you for your visit 

to NATO and for your work with the parliamentary assembly, as 

well. 

I would start by putting some numbers on this. Afghanistan 

today produces about 80 percent to 90 percent of the world’s poppy, 

which is then turned into opium and then ultimately into heroin, 

which is highly addictive. 

In Russia alone last year, 30,000 young people between the ages 

of 16 and 24 died of heroin overdoses. There is a significant heroin 

problem throughout many other nations in Europe, and it flows 

across to the United States. So there is a human cost to this. 

Secondly, as you alluded to, sir, Taliban financing comes out of 

this, probably $100 million to $200 million. And so that funding 

stream goes back and directly contributes to our losses in Afghanistan. 

And then, thirdly, all along that route, there is corruption and 

there is crime, as the drugs move from Afghanistan through Central Asia, through the Baltics—correction, the Balkans—and into 

the user patterns both in Russia, Europe, and ultimately in the 

United States. 

It is very similar to what I learned of about cocaine in the Americas. This, of course, is heroin. 

What we are doing about it is to establish a counter-trafficking 

effort that is multi-agency, if you will, and really is there to support the DEA [Drug Enforcement Agency], as they take the lead on 

this. 

But our ability to bring surveillance, to bring connectivity, to develop analysis, all of that muscularity that we have, similar to 

what Doug is doing at the Joint Interagency Task Force South, we 

are trying to do in U.S. European Command so that we can reduce 

these drug flows for all the reasons I just described. 
22 

It is a significant challenge, but we are starting to see some impact. And in fact, in Afghanistan, where we start this supply chain 

and we see Afghans in the lead, but NATO supporting, we have 

seen a reduction in the production of poppy and, therefore, of 

opium and heroin by about 20 percent over the last 2 years. So we 

are starting down the path. 

In the end, in any problem like this, you have to attack the demand side, as well as the supply side in the transit zone. There is 

no silver bullet. You kind of have to go at all three of those, and 

we are attacking all three in an interagency way. 

General FRASER. Congressman, my discussion is very similar, as 

you look at Latin America and the effort that we have had ongoing 

over a number of years to address the counter-drug issue. We have 

kind of grown that into a counter-illicit-activity issue, because we 

find they all are interrelated. It is drugs; it is weapons; it is finance, bulk cash, all those flowing back and forth. 

We focused very significantly on Colombia, primarily because 

there was a terrorist issue there, also, with the FARC [Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia], and it has now become a 

narcoterrorist issue, as they have now used narcoterrorism or narco 

capability to finance their capacity. 

But if you look at Colombia today, where Colombia was 10 years 

ago, largely on the shoulders of the Colombians, there has been significant progress there. Homicides are down almost 50 percent. 

Kidnappings are down 90 percent. They are largely controlling 

their entire country, where there were pockets where they were not 

before. The aviation capacity that used to emanate out of Colombia 

into the United States has been removed. They have shifted to 

other places. 

And if you look at the effort combined with JIATF South of working in the transit zones, along with our law enforcement partners 

who work with law enforcement throughout the region, the impact 

in the United States over the last 10 years is the price of cocaine 

has gone up 75 percent, the purity has gone down 30 percent. 

There is still a big demand problem in the United States, and it 

kills 38,000 people a year. It is an issue we need to address. 

What have we not done—— 

The CHAIRMAN. If you have more, would you please get it to him 

on record? 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 179.] 

General FRASER. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. We are a little over time there. 

Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, for Admiral Winnefeld, I am going to look north a little bit 

here. Last year, the Olympics were held in Vancouver, and 

NORTHCOM participated in Olympic coordination center activities 

for security issues. And I was curious. What operational lessons 

has NORTHCOM taken from that? And how are you continuing to 

support these northern border enforcement activities? 

I note in your testimony it said 22 percent of available resources 

out of Joint Task Force North are devoted to the northern border. 

Can you talk about quickly—I have got a few other questions— 
23 

about those lessons? And then within the restrictions of Title 10, 

how are you continuing to support northern border enforcement? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Your first question, as far as the Olympics, 

I think we took a lot of good, solid lessons out of that, and I would 

be happy to provide some of those for the record. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 177.] 

Admiral WINNEFELD. I think most importantly was just the close 

cooperation that we have between U.S. Northern Command and 

Canada Command. My partner, Walt Semianiw, up there and I are 

very close. We have a Canadian-U.S. civil assistance plan, where 

U.S. military is able to support Canadian military and vice versa 

under the imprimatur of our two—State Department and their 

Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 

So that was a very good news story. And it has really brought 

out lessons that we could potentially use in a future disaster, either 

in support of Canada or the U.S., so very positive. 

In terms of the northern border, 4,000 miles of very difficult territory. Since 2008, we have provided about two events per year 

that are about 30 days per event. I think we spent around $1.8 million or $1.4 million over the last few years on that. 

I would candidly tell you that, in that time, we have managed 

to assist in the apprehension of 181 pounds of marijuana, which is 

about the same amount that an ultra-light drops at any given night 

coming across the southern border. 

At the same time, JTF [Joint Task Force] North has done exceptional work on the southern border. I think in a 2-month period 

from November through January, they assisted in the apprehension of around 17,000 pounds of marijuana and assisted in the apprehension of the suspects that killed Agent Terry on our side of 

the border. 

So we have to consider this as an investment strategy. We do 

continue to support our interagency partners on the northern border with radar, ground sensors, and that sort of thing, and we will 

continue to do so. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes, and I understand the balance that you have to 

meet, because clearly from the testimony and from questions here 

the issues on the southern border are much more difficult. But we 

live, you know, we live where we live and certainly want to—to the 

extent that you can continue supporting that cooperation, appreciate it. 

But your testimony also covered the Arctic, and I was curious 

what you would do differently than the U.S. Coast Guard and what 

would you share with the U.S. Coast Guard. I also note in your testimony your commander’s estimate is done, it sounds like, for the 

Arctic. Can you tell us where you are on that one and when we can 

expect something? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. We are working very hard on a commander’s estimate, really good progress. I really benefit, by the 

way, inside my command by having 125 Canadians there with an 

integrated staff. It not only allows me to benefit from their expertise in the Arctic, which is considerable, but it also enables me to 

have true transparency with my Canadian partners in that regard, 

so there is no suspicion going back and forth. 
24 

So we are making great progress on that. We have pretty much 

settled on the primary themes being defense, security and safety 

with international cooperation to peacefully open the Arctic, you 

know, to assist in that as best we can without militarizing the Arctic. I also have a partner at the end of the table in U.S. European 

Command, who has got a vested interest in things in the Arctic 

going well as well. 

One of the interesting things that we will be approaching within 

our own process is the notion of working cooperatively with Canada 

so that we can ensure that the capabilities that we may invest in 

as the Arctic opens up are done in a complementary fashion rather 

than a redundant fashion so that we can both be more efficient. 

And I think that is a good news story. If we can carry that ball 

down the field, it would be very helpful. 

And then in terms of our own internal U.S. military sorts of 

things, we work closely with the Coast Guard, and we work with 

the various services, in particular the Navy, who has had a very 

good positive effort and progress to study what the future needs 

are for the Navy in the Arctic. 

And I think we have got some work ahead of us, frankly, what 

kind of capabilities we are going to need, but I think we have a 

good understanding of the gaps in capability that will become apparent as the Arctic opens. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes, and I think the reason I bring that up is because, obviously, the Coast Guard does as well, has a good understanding of the gaps. To the extent that we are not being redundant among our own services, but rather investing together, I think 

will be better for the taxpayers. 

Thanks. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Franks. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank all of you for being here. 

Admiral Winnefeld, I am concerned about the effects of budget 

constraints on the GMD [Ground-based Midcourse Defense] program. First of all, the 2011 budget requests reduce GMD funding 

by about $185 million from the fiscal year 2011 for a total of about 

$1.16 billion, which is obviously designed to sustain the 30 GBIs 

[Ground-Based Interceptors] that we have in Alaska and California, as well as the other GMD programs. 

And I guess the first part of the question is are 30 GBIs enough, 

or is it time to reassess supply, given the potential need to do some 

additional testing? 

I also understand that current 2011 budgets left the GMD program operating with a budget that is really $324 million less than 

was anticipated for 2011. Part of that, I am sure, is the CR [Continuing Resolution] and some of the other challenges that you are 

dealing with, and I apologize for that on behalf of Congress. 

And I know that there are some recent flight intercept test failures that are adding to the challenge. I guess I just want to make 

sure that we know that you have enough funds to successfully implement an effective GMD that will not fail when the rubber hits 

the road. 
25 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Thank you, sir, for that question. First of 

all, the funds, of course, go to the Missile Defense Agency, and I 

am the operator of that system, the trigger-puller, if you will. But 

it goes without saying that I would pay very close attention to the 

health and future of the ballistic missile defense system that we 

have. 

Regarding the budget, I would say that my very good partner, 

General O’Reilly at the Missile Defense Agency—I believe he would 

say that most of those funding reductions are based on efficiencies 

and that it is just good work on the part of his internal staff to try 

to squeeze as much out of that—— 

Mr. FRANKS. I just met with him, and so that is part of the reason for the question. 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Right. I would say that the 2012 budget is 

going to do some very important things for me. One, it is going to 

procure some additional radars, the AN/TPY–2 [Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance] radars that will give us more situational awareness forward. It will provide an East Coast communications node for us that will increase the accuracy of our missiles, 

and it is going to keep the GBI line open, which I think is very important to me, because it gives us more options for the future as 

we study these. 

I would also add there is a good, robust intellectual effort going 

on within the Office of the Secretary of Defense led by the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Policy that is bringing all the players together to look at what the future holds in case the threat starts 

to accelerate a little bit. And we are aware of the potential for that 

happening. 

And I am pleased with what I have seen in that effort. I believe 

it is soon going to be briefed to the Secretary of Defense and that 

subsequent to that Congress would be briefed as well. But I am 

comfortable in my ability to defend the country from the current 

limited ballistic missile threats that I am charged with defending 

against. 

I would echo your comments on the CR. That has some definite 

potential for slowing things down for General O’Reilly to include 

delays in component testing, delays in Navy ballistic missile defense ship modernization. 

It delays some of the testing that we would like to do. It will 

delay the construction of Missile Field 2 in Fort Greely, and so on 

down the line. So if we can get beyond the CRs, I would be with 

you in that regard. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, sir. 

Well, let me—— 

General Fraser, forgive me. I am going to skip over here and talk 

to Admiral Stavridis, if I could. 

Recent evidence, Admiral, has emerged that the Iranian regime 

has released a video that suggests that they may escalate hostilities in an effort to fulfill this prophecy of Mahdi. And that includes, of course, destroying Israel and conquering Jerusalem. 

And I understand that the X–Band Missile Defense Radar System there in Israel now is obviously interconnected with our U.S. 

theater missile defenses and that we have fire control. But I am 
26 

concerned that the budget constraints will prevent these systems 

from effectively mitigating on Iranian threats to the region. 

So I guess the question here is how confident are you that our 

current missile defense network in that region can effectively mitigate an Iranian threat that seems to be increasing or even escalating? And what do you believe needs to be done additionally to 

ensure that we can protect key U.S. interests, including the State 

of Israel, from such a threat? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sir, I do believe that as we look at the 

emerging ballistic missile threat from Iran and from other actors 

both in that region and elsewhere around the world, it is a threat 

for which we must be very mindful. 

The cooperation we have with Israel in that regard is strong, and 

I believe it will continue. I had a chance to go see a missile defense 

exercise a year ago. I am going to another one this summer. It is 

a capability we work very closely on. 

The good news is we are now bringing online, as you know, the 

European phased adaptive approach, and I will send you some material for the record that will cover that part of my answer. Thank 

you, sir. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 179.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mrs. Hanabusa. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I would like to begin with Admiral Winnefeld. In reading your 

testimony, I was taken by the reference to the National Guard. In 

our Readiness Subcommittee, we had talked about the National 

Guard sort of enhancing the forces when we get to the end strength 

issues. 

You specifically mentioned that you have 40 as part of U.S. 

NORTHCOM. And I am also curious, given the fact that we have 

the issues of, of course, Article 10 and Title 32, how is it that you 

are able to do that? Because they are being utilized, or appear to 

be utilized, for issues regarding, really, our own defense, and there 

is, of course, as you know, through the Constitution and various 

other laws, that there are restrictions on what the military can do. 

So if you can explain to me, because this is something that I 

have been very curious about, as we talked about it in Readiness, 

as to how do we get the National Guard working with the military. 

And it is also interesting, because, you know, you are Navy and, 

of course, you don’t really have any of that, and they are under the 

control of the governors and not Congress or the military. So if you 

could educate me on that, I would appreciate it. 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Sure. First of all, I want to stress that I am 

just very, very pleased with the relationship that I have with the 

National Guard, both personally with my counterpart, General 

Craig McKinley, and the adjutants general of the 54 states and territories and Washington, D.C. They are good friends. We are very 

close partners, and I think it is a very good news story. 

I am also very pleased and proud with the dependence that I 

have on the National Guard for things that may surprise you. My 

missile defense trigger-pullers are all National Guardsmen from 
27 

Colorado or Alaska, tremendous capability in the air sovereignty 

alert piece with the Air Guard. And it goes on and on. 

So it is important that I have National Guard representation in 

my headquarters, both culturally, technically, so we properly understand our relationship with the Guard and don’t stray outside 

the lines while we use them. And the Guardsmen that are in my 

headquarters tend to be on Title 10 ADOS [Active Duty for Operational Support], that sort of thing. 

And so we, obviously, have a raft of lawyers that make sure we 

are doing this properly and legally and that sort of thing and that 

they are associated in general with National Guard-related issues, 

which is where the legality comes in. 

And I not only have, I think, it is 45 of them in my headquarters, 

but on any given day temporarily coming to the headquarters to do 

work and that sort of thing, I might have upwards of 100. And I 

am very proud of that fact. 

It has really helped our headquarters in our understanding of 

our missions, many missions we have, and in particular the way 

that we would support the states in the wake of a disaster, working 

through FEMA. So I think it is a very good news story. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Well, as an attorney, I have never heard of attorneys playing a critical role to keep people on. 

Admiral WINNEFELD. We have 10,000 of them in the Department 

of Defense. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Along the same lines, Admiral, you also mentioned the concept of transnational criminal organizations as a 

major focus. And I guess that has also triggered the interest in the 

National Guard component as well, because, you know, we don’t 

usually traditionally view the military as somebody engaging 

transnational criminal, or TCOs, as you say. 

Can you also explain to me how that is interfacing with the National Guard, if it does at all, because that seems to be more of a 

local state issue than a military one? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Sure, that is a very good question. And in 

general, first, I would say that anything that we do regarding 

transnational criminal organizations, whether it be domestically or 

in support of our Mexican partners, is always in support of civilian 

agencies, in particular law enforcement. We don’t take on any of 

those roles ourselves. 

On the U.S. side of the border, we give considerable support on 

the active duty side using JTF North to our law enforcement partners, in particular Customs and Border Protection and ICE [U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and those sorts of things. 

When it comes to the National Guard and the recent deployment 

of National Guard to the border, that is completely outside of my 

responsibility, in the sense that they are brought under Title 32 active status. They work for the state governors in that status. 

And by virtue of the fact that they are in Title 32, technically 

they can do law enforcement operations, although I don’t believe 

they are. They are typically doing entry identification team support 

to the Border Patrol and that sort of thing. 

So I have no command-and-control authority whatsoever over the 

National Guardsmen who have been sent to the border. I watch it, 
28 

of course. I keep in touch with my Guard partners on how it is 

going. 

Ms. HANABUSA. But they are an integral part of your TCO operations? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. The National Guardsmen who are deployed 

to the borders are not part of my counter TCO operations. They 

really work for the state governors and in turn work closely with 

the Customs and Border Protection team. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Coffman. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank all three of you for your service to our country. 

Admiral Stavridis, if I am saying it right, the Government Accountability Office has criticized EUCOM—European Command— 

and U.S. Army-Europe for its cost assessments regarding options 

for retaining four brigade combat teams in Europe, saying the analyses were, quote-unquote—‘‘poorly documented, limited in scope 

and based on questionable assumptions.’’ 

What have you done to correct this problem? Do you agree with 

the GAO [Government Accountability Office]? Will retention of 

three or four brigade combat teams in Europe add significant infrastructure sustainment costs? And what are the cost implications? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Well, this is an area in which there has been 

a great deal of analysis going both ways. And I would say that, 

first of all, I will provide you—because it is detailed and technical, 

and I would like to come back to you on the record and provide 

that in some measured way to you. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 180.] 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. As a general proposition, I think over the 

last year we have become much closer in the way we viewed this 

as between Department of Army, EUCOM, GAO and OSD [the Office of the Secretary of Defense], because OSD has really stepped 

up and led the study that the chairman asked me about earlier. So 

as a result of that study coming out, I think you will have an opportunity to see that we have brought this analysis together in a 

way that is sensible. 

The root of the question is always, do you save money or do you 

spend more money when you forward deploy troops from CONUS 

[the Continental United States] or from a forward European Command platform, if you will? And so there has been some back and 

forth between the entities you mentioned, Congressman, in regard 

to everything from cost of shipping to moving, we would say, from 

fort to port and port to fort forward. 

So I would say over the last year we have brought that analysis 

together, and it is reflected in the report that will come out shortly, 

and I will get you more of the technical detail and provide it to you. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Let me ask a quick follow-up question in regard 

to that. If forces based in Europe are not committed to combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, in your opinion, how many brigade combat teams should be forward-based in Europe? 
29 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Well, I think that it is difficult to answer 

that question. And I would point here to the Libya operation, in the 

sense of we never know what is going to pop up. And, obviously, 

we are not sending ground troops to Libya. That is very clear. However, it is indicative of the potential for emergence of new tasking. 

So the analysis that we have provided to the Department of Defense reflects the potential for change in the world. And the change 

can be good as we transition in Afghanistan and reduce it, and the 

change can potentially be bad, if we see an emergent mission somewhere. 

Mr. COFFMAN. And do you believe that the operation right now 

in Libya has the appropriate force mix between U.S. and coalition 

forces? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I do. And I would say that we today in 

NATO took over the mission, and we are reducing the U.S. component of it measurably. And I think you will see our allies increasingly engaged, and that is appropriate. 

And the mix of forces is sea and air forces, since we are not going 

to use ground troops there. And certainly that is good, in the sense 

that it is different than the forces that we need in Afghanistan, a 

landlocked country. So I believe we are adequately resourced at the 

moment at NATO, and I believe that the balance between U.S. and 

coalition is appropriate. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Let me just say one word for the record that the 

President said in his speech, I think, on Monday night that it took 

8 years to do regime change in Iraq. Actually, it took 3 weeks to 

do regime change in Iraq. It took 8 years in the aftermath of that 

regime change, given the fact that there was then a humanitarian 

catastrophe and sectarian warfare that dragged the U.S. into it for 

8 years. 

General Fraser, could you speak a little bit about China and its 

growing influence in Latin America? 

General FRASER. Thank you, Congressman. 

Today I see it primarily in the diplomatic and the commercial 

realm, really, and a two-way street, if you will. Many of the countries and nations within Latin America and the Caribbean are 

reaching out to China as they see that as an economic opportunity 

for them as well as China coming in and working within Latin 

America. 

Outside of Asia, Latin America is the second destination for Chinese investment. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Bordallo. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a question for Admiral Winnefeld. Actually, I would like 

to make a statement, and I want to thank my colleague from Hawaii for bringing up the National Guard. We are, indeed, very 

proud of our National Guard in Guam. And I think if my statistics 

are right that, per capita, we have the largest number of National 

Guardsmen in the United States. 

Is that correct? 
30 

Admiral WINNEFELD. That is a very good question. Because 

Guam lies outside of my area of responsibility, I have not paid attention. But I will certainly look into that for you. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 179.] 

Ms. BORDALLO. Well, Congressman Wilson was with me when we 

heard those statistics. 

Also, having just returned from a CODEL [Congressional Delegation] with Congressman Wilson and other members of the Armed 

Services Committee, we were shocked during a country briefing to 

hear that over 1 million people are addicted to drugs in Afghanistan. Is that a figure you have heard? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I can take that question. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Yes? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, ma’am, that is accurate. I will give you 

another one. In Russia today there are 1.5 million people addicted 

to heroin. 

So this is part of this supply chain of poppy to opium to heroin 

that is moving largely from Afghanistan through the region and 

contributing to deleterious effects in corruption, in human cost, as 

you allude to, a very great challenge. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Well, we were truly shocked at some of the numbers that we heard. 

Also, Admiral, I would like to ask you, you have often discussed 

the most effective method to national security is a whole-of-government approach. 

You mentioned your efforts in great detail in your posture statement. Would you please describe to us what you have learned from 

this approach and if you still believe that this is the best path forward? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I do believe in this very turbulent 21st century that we need to bring all elements of national capability together to solve security challenges, because so many of them are 

transnational, nontraditional problems that direct military activity 

will not solve. 

We have to have Department of State, AID and Defense, the socalled three Ds, working together—defense, diplomacy and development. And I believe it is actually much larger than those three 

agencies. 

We have talked a lot today about many other government agencies, from the Drug Enforcement Administration to the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] to the Department of Justice, Department of Transportation, Department of Homeland Security, obviously. 

We have to bring all of these elements of capability together to 

bear against the challenges that we have all talked about today, 

because they go across borders, they are nontraditional. And I believe that is a very important aspect of our security going forward. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Well, I think my colleagues would agree with me, 

during our recent CODEL, we did find that, working together, all 

of these agencies were very important to our success. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much. 

And I yield back my time. 
31 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. West. 

Mr. WEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. 

And, gentlemen, it really is an honor to have you all here today. 

And, to Admiral Stavridis, I understand that we have 

transitioned the combat theater of operations to NATO control 

right now. My question is this. And having been on some NATO 

missions, I know that lots of times that CJMD, the combined joint 

manning document, lots of times has to be picked up ad hoc to be 

filled. So my question is, what percentage of the CJMD are we 

finding that the United States is going to have to fill with the 

NATO C–2 [Command and Control]? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. A couple of answers to that, and, first, Congressman, thank you for your service, as well. 

Mr. WEST. Not a problem. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. And obviously spent some time in NATO. 

I would say that let us start with the command structure itself. 

Today the command elements are an Italian CAOC [Combined Air 

and Space Operations Center] and their operation center in Poggio 

Renatico, commanded by an Italian one-star. There is a three-star 

Italian admiral who is in charge of the arms embargo at Maritime 

Component Command-Naples; in Izmir, Turkey, the Air Component Command Center, headed by a three-star American with a 

three-star French deputy. And that flows up to the three-star Canadian general, who is heading up the joint task force embedded 

in Joint Forces Command-Naples. 

Of that command structure, to pick one number, for example— 

but it is an important one—would be flag and general officers. In 

all of those entities, there are about 40 admirals and generals. 

Only five will be from the United States. The rest will be alliance 

officers. 

Throughout the operation, I think the balance will be somewhere 

around 50–50 as we move forward. Over the last week or so, taking 

strike sorties as an example, they have been balanced about 50– 

50 between the alliance and the United States. 

And then, finally, to take a third example, I think that we will 

see over the next couple of weeks as we move into this, we will see 

the strike part of this and the aviation combat air patrol will be 

filled largely by the allies, and the United States will shift to 

enablers—things like intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, 

refueling, CSAR, combat search and rescue. 

So I think the balance feels about right in terms of alliance, and 

I am confident that we will be able to fill the CJMD, CJSOR [Combined Joint Statement of Requirements] appropriately as we go forward. 

Mr. WEST. Have you found yourself having to switch hats back 

and forth to task yourself as the EUCOM commander to—— 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. It is actually no, because the big change over 

the last 5 years was the stand-up of U.S. Africa Command. As you 

very well recall, Africa and Europe used to be part of one enormous 

combatant command, and I think the department very wisely, with 

the support of Congress, stood up Africa Command. So it really has 

been a transition from a U.S. commander, Carter Ham, General 
32 

Carter Ham, over to me as the NATO commander, and that is in 

progress today. 

Mr. WEST. Very well. 

To General Fraser and Admiral Winnefeld, first of all, thanks, 

and it is great to see both of you again. 

General Fraser, it was great that your staff hosted me down 

there at your headquarters—a very beautiful, pristine headquarters and a very functional headquarters. 

One of the concerns I have is—we have discussed before—with 

the TCOs. But we also do have a radical Islamic threat that we are 

starting to see—Central America, South America, and even creeping into Mexico. 

We discussed while we were at your headquarters these new 

mini-submersibles that we are starting to see. Of course, today 

those mini-submersibles could be used by the TCOs for drugs, but 

what could they possibly be used for in the future? 

When I go to the Border Patrol Web site, I see this category 

called ‘‘OTMs,’’ which stands for ‘‘Other Than Mexicans.’’ And I am 

sure every one of us know who fits into that category. So my big 

concern is, are we starting to see the age-old maxim of ‘‘the enemy 

of my enemy is my friend’’? 

Is there an alliance that is somewhat growing in your two respective AORs between these TCOs and some of these radical Islamic 

non-state, non-uniformed belligerents? And how are we tracking it? 

General FRASER. Congressman, thank you for that question. 

There is a lot of complexity to the relations of the TCOs within 

the region. And even though extremist organizations are involved 

in illicit activity, I have not seen a connection between those two 

groups as they conduct their own illicit activities. 

The one connection that we see growing is the area we term ‘‘special interest aliens,’’ and those are individuals coming from other 

parts outside of Latin America, who have and use the illicit trafficking routes within Latin America for entry into the United 

States. We are just seeing connections there. That is not necessarily connected to extremist organizations, but we are continuing to watch. 

Mr. WEST. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. If you could give it to him for the record, that 

would be appreciated. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 180.] 

Mr. Thornberry. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Stavridis, I wanted to follow up on a couple of things 

that you have touched on. The chairman began by asking about 

force structure in Europe and the study that is going on. But I 

think a lot of us here at home question about why we have so 

many military folks still in Europe. 

And you touched briefly on the cost aspect of this. But can you 

discuss a little bit the operational advantages to having forces deployed in Europe should they be needed in a Libya-like situation 

or elsewhere in the Middle East or North Africa? How big a deal 

is that, to have those forces that far in advance? 
33 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sir, I think it is a very important advantage 

having our forces forward in Europe. As I mentioned, we have come 

down a long way since the Cold War, appropriately, from 400,000 

down to about 80,000 today. Those 80,000 I think contribute in at 

least three very distinct and obvious ways. 

You touched on the first, which is geography. I think that as we 

look forward into this turbulent 21st century, I think the possibility 

of continuing U.S. engagement forward in the region in which we 

are involved today is fairly high. And as a result, having forces 

that are forward gives us geographic immediacy in terms of response. 

And with Libya, for example, the U.S. Air Force, which is still 

very strong in Europe, had jets, helicopters, refuelers all based 

there that could immediately be chopped to Africa Command and 

be on-station. So I think that first advantage of geography is very 

crucial. 

A second one is that interaction of our troops with all of the European partners, where we learn from each other. And I think that 

is an advantage that we tend to overlook at times. But being able 

to operate so frequently together in so many different places in and 

around Europe, including our crown jewel training range, 

Hohenfels and Grafenwoehr in Germany, as well as the new bases 

in the east, is a second real advantage—that kind of continuous engagement. 

And then thirdly, the presence of the United States there is what 

encourages our allies to come forward and operate with us. Because 

we operate with them, we live with them, it creates an environment in which we can generate 45,000 non-U.S. troops for Afghanistan. We can generate today—for example, off of Libya, there are 

40 ships operating, only about 12 from the United States, the rest 

from our European allies. Why is that? Because we are embedded 

with them and operate with them. 

So I would say geography, mutual training and the benefits of 

that, and finally the ability to leverage these forces forward are 

three very strong advantages. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Let me ask you about one other thing. You 

mentioned today NATO takes over the Libyan operation. Are the 

rules of engagement clear? I think we all assume that if an airplane gets up in the sky, a Libyan airplane, it will be shot down. 

If a tank moves, it seems like the tank is taken out. But it is not 

clear to me, if there are a group of Libyan government soldiers 

massing together, what our reaction is to that. 

And so I guess my question is, are the rules of engagement clear? 

What can you tell us about them? And in a NATO context, are they 

determined by the least common denominator? Or who sets them? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Terrific question. I think we should probably 

not discuss specifics of rules of engagement because of classification. I will provide you the actual rules of engagement. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 177.] 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. And I think you will be struck as you see 

how similar they are to U.S. normal unilateral rules of engagement 

in format, in style, and in fact in intent and use of terminology, 
34 

anywhere from ‘‘hostile act’’ to ‘‘hostile intent’’ to ‘‘penetration of 

technical area,’’ et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. 

And this goes back to your previous question of an advantage. 

We have worked together so long with these allies that we are fairly close in our tactics, techniques, procedures and, yes, our rules of 

engagement. 

In terms of how they are generated, they come up from the operators. The first set of rules of engagement were generated from the 

operational commander, who is heading this operation down in 

Naples. They come into my headquarters. They are very carefully 

vetted by my operational international NATO team. And then they 

go up to the North Atlantic Council, and they are approved there. 

All that flowed very smoothly in this process. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Gibson. 

Mr. GIBSON. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank the distinguished panelists for being here and also 

for your leadership for our servicemen and women. 

I guess first a comment, and it is conveyed with the deepest and 

most profound respect for my colleagues and the panelists. But, you 

know, on the issue of the forward presence and some of the virtues 

that have been put forward today, I guess it would be precisely my 

point that I am concerned about us being forever or aggressively 

being involved in operations overseas. 

I have opposed the actions in Libya. I think we have so much on 

the plate right now that we need to do to bring closure with regard 

to Iraq and Afghanistan. We are certainly involved in a global challenge from extremist networks that are designed to protect our 

cherished way of life. 

And as we bring those operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to a 

closure and look to perfect and to neutralize, perfect our 

counterterrorism operations and neutralize the extremist threats 

and learn from the past, I don’t want to see us get involved, as 

much as I am empathetic with those who want to live free. 

So I guess I would respectfully disagree that we get added benefit from forward presence. And when asked that we consider the 

fact that while these are worthy goals—reassurance, deterrence, 

training and engaging in operations—I am not convinced that that 

must be so with forward presence. I think you can also do these 

things using joint exercises going forward. I just wanted to make 

that comment. 

The question I have is actually for Admiral Winnefeld, and I 

must say right up front that I am critical of some of the expansions 

in our federal government over the last decade as it relates to protecting our way of life. I just wanted to say that up front because 

I m going to ask you the question with regard to the whole-of-government, Department of Defense, Northern Command and Department of Homeland Security. 

Can you perhaps provide some clarity on unity of effort? Who is 

in charge with regard to border security, counterterrorism operations here, cyber defense and response to natural disaster? Who 

is in charge? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Thank you for your question, sir. 
35 

First, I would say that we have a very good whole-of-government 

synergistic relationship with our various partners inside the federal government, to include the Department of Homeland Security 

and also inside DOD [the Department of Defense]. In general, I 

find myself, unless I am pulling the trigger for a ballistic missile 

defense or some sort of air-breathing threat to North America, that 

most of what I do is in support of my partners. 

So in the event of a disaster, for example, there are capabilities 

that the Department of Defense can bring to bear that we would 

use other places as well, potentially overseas in a contingency or 

something like that, that are either very specific capabilities that 

are in short supply among our partners inside government, or they 

are capacities—just sheer numbers of people that can respond to a 

disaster, who are well trained, disciplined, you know, as your experience in the military would probably inform you, where we can assist our partners. 

And we have very carefully drawn rules and limitations and 

processes and procedures by which we provide that support. So my 

very good partner in the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

Craig Fugate, is in the lead in the federal response to a disaster 

in support of the various states. If he needs my support, he will— 

there is a process in place—the Stafford Act, Economy Act, where 

he can provide a mission assignment to me, and we will respond 

according to the Secretary of Defense’s willingness to do that. So 

that is just one small example. 

Regarding the cyber piece, I would, of course, defer to Strategic 

Command and U.S. Cyber Command in that regard, but they have 

struck a very good relationship with Department of Homeland Security in terms of what the way ahead is for supporting this country in the event of a cyber attack that could be fairly debilitating. 

So I would want to assure you that we do have minimal 

redundancies, that we have appropriate procedures and rules in 

place where we can work closely together as a whole-of-government. 

Mr. GIBSON. I appreciate the comments and know that every day 

you are giving everything you have to protect us, and we are just 

incredibly proud. I would just say that I think that there were 

other ways that we could have aligned our organizations that I 

think would have been more effective, but for now I will just yield 

back. Thanks. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Conaway. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, thank you. 

General Fraser, you mentioned earlier with respect to Mr. 

Coffman’s comments relevant to China’s activities in Venezuela, 

and clearly the numbers show that it is commercial, but in your 

statement you talk about military arms sales to Venezuela, Russian. They had portable weapons, automatic weapons, the AK–47 

deal they made with Chavez and also, I guess, sales to Bolivia. 

Can you talk to us somewhat about our visibility as to what Chavez is doing with respect to those relationships? Fold into that the 

Iranian work and Russian work with Chavez in terms of at least 

talking about a nuclear power program within Venezuela and how 
36 

that might morph into something else that is more threatening to 

us than just his bluster. 

Interesting comment made the other day about wanting, I guess, 

Venezuelans to eat less every day to reduce their caloric intake. I 

didn’t realize that was such a strategic threat to Venezuela, but 

maybe it is, to talk about how he is—give me some thoughts about 

the military aspects of what China and Russia are doing in Venezuela and South America in general. 

General FRASER. Thank you very much for that question, Congressman. If I look broadly across the region and look at China, it 

is very much focused on commercial and diplomatic efforts. They do 

have military programs not just with Venezuela, but with many of 

the countries in the region, where they are inviting individuals to 

come attend courses within China. 

They are also looking to establish closer military-to-military relationships with partners in the region. And they are beginning to 

sell more weapons, the K–8. It is a light attack aircraft and a trainer that they are selling to Venezuela and that Bolivia is also looking at right now. I still see it very much in a commercial and diplomatic and in a business aspect. 

Russia, I still see again very much focused in arms and also 

working to address both commercial and diplomatic efforts. 

Do we have a lot of visibility? I don’t have a lot of visibility into 

what all those agreements are. I see a number of agreements 

made. Those agreements tend to take a long time to come to fruition. 

Specifically to your question on Iran and the issue with nuclear 

power, there was an agreement that Venezuela and Iran signed, 

but subsequent to the concerns in Japan over the Fukushima reactor site, at least the statements from President Chavez are that he 

has put a hold on any future development of nuclear power. 

Mr. CONAWAY. We have had a change in the presidency in Colombia. You mentioned the great work the Colombians did led by 

their courageous President Uribe. Now with Santos do you see any 

changes in their focus on what successes Colombia has had with 

Plan Colombia and our involvement with the new Santos-led government? 

General FRASER. I see President Santos continuing the great 

work that President Uribe did, and expanding it. He has reestablished diplomatic relations with Venezuela as well as Ecuador, and 

there are growing military as well as commercial and other relationships there. Across all his borders, he is working to expand 

that. 

If you look within Colombia itself beyond Plan Colombia, it is 

now a consolidation plan, and he is even looking to put in place a 

broader plan, a $240 billion effort over 4 years to expand the Colombian government’s presence throughout the region. 

In addition to that, he is reaching out beyond Colombia. He is 

helping support the Mexican military with training some helicopter 

pilots. He is involved in Central America. He is looking to see 

where they can provide their lessons to other partners and share 

their experiences. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. 

General FRASER. So it is a very positive effort. 
37 

Mr. CONAWAY. The requirements—on page 22 of your statement, 

you talk about the needs that you have. Specific needs include 

manned and unmanned aerial vehicles, light detection and ranging 

technology, a variety of things. Does the 2012 budget request support acquisition of these capabilities for Southern Command? 

General FRASER. These are capabilities that are existing broadly 

across the Department of Defense, so they are continuing to 

progress and provide those capabilities. And then we will work on 

a year-to-year basis on where the concerns and where their priorities are within the department to—— 

Mr. CONAWAY. So your 2012 budget request gives you access— 

I mean, these aren’t new, but they give you the proper access to 

deploy these things in your AOR adequately. 

General FRASER. As we look across the globe and you look at all 

the concerns that we have around the globe, within their priorities 

and within the concerns that we have, I have adequate access to 

those types of capability. 

Is there opportunity for more? Yes, sir. But if we put it in context, I am comfortable with where we are. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. 

Thanks, Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Admiral Stavridis, General Fraser, Admiral Winnefeld, thank 

you, each of you, for the job you are doing. Please convey our 

thanks. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, all of us, 

I am sure, would ask you to convey our thanks to those that you 

command for the great job that they are doing. And thank you for 

your time here today. 

This committee will now be adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

MARCH 30, 2011 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 30, 2011 

(43) 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

MARCH 30, 2011 

(177) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. THORNBERRY 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. On April 4, 2011 EUCOM representatives provided a copy of 

the then current NATO rules of engagement for Libya operations to Representative 

Thornberry’s office. [See page 33.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. LARSEN 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Lessons from our support to the Vancouver 2010 Olympics 

(Operation PODIUM) pertain to Command and Control; Relationships and Interaction; Information Management; and Guiding Documents, Concept Plans 

(CONPLANs), and Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs). 

COMMAND AND CONTROL 

• Multiple Supported Commanders. During the Olympics, there were two supported commanders: Commander, Canada Command (Canada COM) and Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and U.S. 

Northern Command (USNORTHCOM). Although there were no fundamental 

doctrinal issues with multiple supported commanders and there were no issues 

with defining tasks during the actual operation, there were minor issues with 

planning, theater activation, theater deactivation and personnel administration 

that were complicated by the dual nature of the supported commanders. 

• Way Ahead. In conjunction with the Secretary, Joint Staff (SJS), develop the 

standing Canadian Special Security Event framework, recommend modifications to the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) Command and Control Directive, 

and provide input for new CDS Initiating Directives to clearly identify roles, 

responsibilities, and missions for the supported commanders. 

• Tactical Control (TACON) of Forces. There were concerns within the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense (SecDef) regarding TACON of U.S forces to the Canadian Forces (CF). Although the Canada-United States Civil Assistance Plan 

(CAP) clearly states that the host nation will have TACON over visiting forces, 

there were concerns stated during Operation PODIUM that were only resolved 

after long discussions. 

• Way Ahead. One possible resolution of this issue is to have the signing authority for the CAP at the SecDef and CDS level, rather than, Commander, 

USNORTHCOM and Commander, Canada COM level. This could also be an 

issue to be resolved by Permanent Joint Board on Defense. 

• Common Operating Picture (COP)—Tracking of Forces. There appears to 

be different expectations within USNORTHCOM and Canada COM as to the 

COP. Forces within Canada are not equipped with a Situational Awareness System (Blue Force Tracker). Therefore, the level of fidelity available to and requested by Commander, Canada COM may be less than what is available to 

Commander, USNORTHCOM. 

• Way Ahead. A clear understanding of what a COP means to each of the nations is required for the CAP. Although this will often be commander dependent, it will still establish a baseline of understanding from which planning 

and information management requirements can be developed. 

RELATIONSHIPS AND INTERACTION 

• Medical Overall. There are a significant number of hurdles that need to be 

overcome for medical personnel, pharmaceuticals and counter-measures to be 

employed cross-border. These issues should continue to be addressed through 

both governments’ medical services so that the employment of medical personnel, pharmaceuticals and counter-measures can be expedited through a 

clearly defined process. 

• Way Ahead. 

• Patient Regulation. To achieve maximum benefit should patient regulation be required within Canada, a more robust patient regulation system 

should be developed. Canada could either modify the existing U.S. National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) or develop a de novo Canadian 
178 

system. Either system should be compatible with the U.S. system to facilitate moving patients across the border should that be required. 

• Reciprocal Licensing. Refine three courses of action and determine 

best course: continue current practice of emergency waiving of licensure 

at the state and provincial level; seek pre-approval for military and 

NDMS personnel based on credentialing processes currently used for 

these personnel; or, build on existing provincial/state cross border public 

health agreements to ease reciprocity of licensure. 

• Cross Border. Overall, the preparation for U.S. forces to come across the border into Canada was well coordinated. However, there may be a difference between deliberate planning of crossing operations and crisis planning. Several 

issues still need to be further investigated with regards to border crossing. 

• Way Ahead. 

• The Visiting Forces Act (VFA) and Status of Forces Act (SOFA) should 

be validated for contingency operations (not just exercises and training). 

• The issue of servicemembers with criminal records needs to be examined 

and if the requirement to pre-screen these members exists, this should 

be captured in the CAP. 

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 

• Canadian Communications Systems Network (CSNI) Effectiveness of 

Access for the United States. CSNI was chosen for Operation PODIUM because it is the main Canadian secure system and the system is widely available 

within NORAD and USNORTHCOM. Other terminals were added as required 

(Washington State and Joint Task Force Civil Support) to ensure even greater 

connectivity. However, there are significant challenges to using CSNI in the 

United States. 

• Way Ahead. 

• We should continue to pursue the initiative to allow interoperability between CSNI and the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network, particularly in terms of email between the commands. 

• When Law Enforcement Agencies are involved, more planning and greater effort will be required to develop an Information Management (IM) 

plan that recognizes law enforcement sensitivities, but doesn’t create a 

military ‘‘firewall’’ for information. 

• Sharing of Lessons Learned. Canada and the United States have different 

software systems for capturing lessons learned and these systems do not talk 

to each other. In addition, there is no formalized process for the three commands to sharing lessons learned. 

• Way Ahead. A formalized ‘‘knowledge sharing’’ process for sharing lessons learned should be developed for the commands. 

GUIDING DOCUMENTS, CONPLANs, AND MOUs 

• Guiding Documents, CONPLANs and MOUs. In general, the guiding documents that are in place worked for Operation PODIUM. However, several of 

these documents should be modified or re-examined in light of some of the lessons learned during the operation. 

• CAP. The CAP should 

• Include a detailed IM plan to provide a baseline for future security 

events. 

• Document processes that are in place so that medical requirements can 

be expedited. 

• Contain a legal annex that identifies key differences between operating 

in the United States and in Canada, and highlights key legal authority 

documents like the SOFA and VFA. 

• Include a financial annex to provide a framework for fiscal reimbursement and dispensation. 

• SOFA and VFA. Both of these documents were used extensively by military 

and interagency organizations to support the deployment of U.S. forces across 

the border. Applicability of the VFA and SOFA needs to be confirmed prior 

to the commencement of any particular operation. 

• CF CDS C2 Directive and CDS Initiating Directives. The CF CDS C2 

Directive should be revisited with the SJS to clarify some of the relationships 

between NORAD and Canada COM, especially during special security events. 

Since dual supported commanders for operations will likely not disappear, a 

more detailed understanding of the linkages during planning, theater activation/deactivation and personnel administration is required. [See page 23.] 
179 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER 

General FRASER. What we have not done yet, and what we are working to do, is 

to ensure a regional, integrated counterdrug strategy—connecting our efforts in Colombia, the Andean ridge, Central America, Mexico, the Caribbean, and the U.S. 

The problems Mexico is facing are implicitly connected to the cocaine production in 

the Andean region; that cocaine is trafficked through the Central American corridor, 

through Mexico, and into the U.S. or abroad to the rest of the world. As an example, 

USSOUTHCOM and USNORTHCOM are actively working together to ensure there 

is no seam between our commands, focusing in particular on strengthening border 

security along Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize. To be truly impactful, our counternarcotics strategy needs to be coordinated in concert with our partner nations, taking into account their capabilities, resources, and particular concerns as well as with 

our interagency partners, such as Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security, under the lead of the Department of State, to ensure an integrated 

and comprehensive strategy. 

In spite of continued regional successes, many challenges continue to exist. We 

are actively working to promote information sharing among countries in the region 

to better coordinate our counter drug strategy. Regional security initiatives like the 

Central American Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) and Caribbean Basin Security Initiative (CBSI) are designed to build partner nation capability, which 

USSOUTHCOM actively supports through our engagement and security cooperation 

activities in the region. We envision a region that is capable and willing to help address security threats that affect all nations in this hemisphere. 

Recent world economic challenges, as well as other security challenges, have resulted in limitations on available resources. This has resulted in a void of assets 

which otherwise would have the potential to disrupt roughly 66% of the actionable 

intelligence driven cases. In contrast, transnational criminal organizations adapt 

quickly to effective counter measures and have significant financial resources. The 

recent confirmation that these organizations use submarines, called Self-Propelled 

Fully Submersibles, underscores the technology and resources available to these organizations. 

There is no silver bullet. Through the engagement efforts of U.S. Southern Command, regional cooperation will continue to evolve and strengthen. [See page 22.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. BORDALLO 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Ma’am, you are correct. Guam has the highest per capita 

National Guard membership in the nation with 1500+ Guardsmen for 180,800 persons. [See page 30.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. FRANKS 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Implementation of the European Phased Adaptive Approach 

(EPAA) occupies a great deal of our attention in the U.S. European Command 

(EUCOM) theater, and EUCOM is working with our partners in the State Department, Missile Defense Agency, Services, and Components to ensure we implement 

and operationalize EPAA to defend U.S. forces and interests in Europe. 

For Phase 1, the USS MONTEREY, a Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser, 

is already in theater, laying the foundation for Phase 1 and the transition to operational capability. This ship represents the first asset deployed under the EPAA as 

well as the intercept capability planned for Phase 1. To enhance this capability, 

EUCOM is supporting the State Department’s basing negotiations for the AN/TPY– 

2 radar and working closely with the Joint Staff, Office of the Secretary of Defense, 

and U.S. Army Europe to ensure deployment as soon as possible once negotiations 

are complete. 

For Phase 2, EUCOM is fully supporting negotiations led by the State Department to establish basing and agreements necessary for the Aegis Ashore site in Romania. We will work closely with the U.S. Navy and the Missile Defense Agency 

as the Aegis Ashore development program continues. 

For Phase 3, EUCOM is working with a key ally, Poland, to lay the groundwork 

and define the terms and conditions necessary for the eventual construction of an 

Aegis Ashore facility in that country. 

Finally, EUCOM and our Component staffs continue to work with our NATO 

counterparts to develop the procedures and define the systems we will use to 

achieve the missile defense language outlined in the goals of the Lisbon Summit. 

[See page 26.] 
180 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. COFFMAN 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I agree with the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the 

Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) report, which concurred with the report’s 

two recommendations, and has taken remedial action on both fronts. I also support 

DoD’s response to the report’s conclusion, which reads: ‘‘Although the Department 

concurs with the specific report recommendations, the Department nonetheless 

takes issue with a report conclusion that ‘Keeping more Army forces in Europe than 

originally planned would result in significant additional costs...’(page 3). This report 

does not consider the full cost of the CONUS basing alternative, including the cost 

to build new infrastructure in CONUS, or the cost to rotate units from CONUS to 

Europe on temporary deployments to maintain a forward presence. Because it ignores these costs, the conclusion of the report is unfounded.’’ 

At U.S. European Command (EUCOM), we understand the importance of developing a defined process and establishing a clear methodology for evaluating force 

posture alternatives. To that end, my team—working in concert with the Office of 

Secretary of Defense (OSD), Joint Staff, U.S. Army, and U.S. government interagency representatives—has taken definitive steps to institute and ensure proper, 

balanced, and transparent analysis. Those steps include: 1) the codification of OSD 

guidance, specific cost/benefit criteria (political/military, operational, force structure/ 

force management, and costs), and defined posture processes in an updated EUCOM 

posture planning instruction; 2) a clear definition and delineation of the roles and 

responsibilities of EUCOM Headquarters’ two posture planning bodies, the EUCOM 

Posture Executive Council (EPEC) and the EUCOM Posture Implementation Team 

(EPIT), into EUCOM’s latest Theater Posture Plan; 3) the wider inclusion of interagency representatives into EUCOM’s theater posture planning efforts; and 4) continued coordination with OSD, the Joint Staff, and the supporting Services to include known installation operations and maintenance (O&M) costs into force posture 

considerations. I am confident that these steps will help address and remediate the 

issues raised in the GAO report. 

Post-hearing Note: Finally, I support the Department’s decision, announced on 

April 8, 2011, to retain three Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) in Europe, as well as 

DoD’s conclusion that this decision ‘‘will enhance and rebalance the U.S. force posture in Europe to make it more capable, more effective, and better aligned with current and future security challenges.’’ On specific questions of cost with respect to 

the BCT decision, I would respectfully refer you to the Director of OSD Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) and the Department of the Army, who remain the governmental agencies responsible for final cost analysis and evaluation. 

[See page 28.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. WEST 

General FRASER. There are no confirmed links between Latin American Trans National Criminal Organizations and Islamic Radical Groups. However, there are several familial clans of Lebanese descent involved in illegal activity, to include drug 

trafficking and the laundering of drug proceeds throughout Latin America and the 

Caribbean. These clans have publically been associated with Hizballah. They typically operate within the Free Trade Zones in the region and use the permissive environment to facilitate their activities. In addition, supporters and sympathizers of 

Lebanese Hizballah in Latin America reportedly move multi-hundred kilogram 

quantities of cocaine to Europe and the Middle East each year. We assess that 

Hizballah receives tens of millions of dollars annually from supporters in Latin 

America involved in drug trafficking. [See page 32.] 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

MARCH 30, 2011 

(183) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER 

Mr. TURNER. Last month we discussed the NATO Deterrence Review. I get the 

sense that this review may jump right to ‘‘how’’ we deter and not examine ‘‘who’’ 

or ‘‘what’’ we’re trying to deter. 

a) How do you conduct a deterrence review without first identifying ‘‘who’’ or 

‘‘what’’ we’re deterring? 

b) Also, Russia has thousands of tactical nuclear weapons; the U.S. has a few 

hundred. Is it in our national security interest to unilaterally reduce or withdraw 

our U.S. nuclear forces in Europe? 

c) What role do nuclear weapons play in the NATO Alliance? 

d) What role do U.S. nuclear forces in Europe play? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. 

a) I am assured that it will be a thorough and complete review—taking into account all the evolving changes and factors in the current and foreseeable security 

environment. It will help determine the appropriate mix of conventional, nuclear, 

and missile defense forces that NATO will need to deter and defend against threats 

to the Alliance and its member states. 

b) The United States Government has repeatedly stated we will consult with our 

NATO Allies on reduction or withdrawal of nuclear forces and will not take unilateral action. I strongly support that policy. 

c) The NATO Strategic Concept preface states ‘‘as long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance.’’ It further points out that 

deterrence, based on an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional capabilities, remains a core element of NATO’s overall strategy. To reiterate Secretary Clinton, nuclear weapons play a role in the NATO Alliance by providing a ‘‘safe, secure, and 

effective deterrent.’’ 

d) U.S. nuclear forces provide the resources necessary to maintain NATO’s nuclear deterrent. Additionally, NATO views the strategic nuclear forces of the Alliance, particularly those provided by the United States, as the supreme guarantee 

of the allies’ security. 

Mr. TURNER. Your [written] testimony points to the extraordinary ‘‘leverage’’ Russia holds over oil and gas supplies for Europe—and that Russia has occasionally 

shut off the gas. What is your assessment of the impacts on NATO and the stability 

of Europe resulting from this energy dependence relationship? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Russia has a minimal ability to directly impact NATO missions through its oil leverage, with the notable exception of the fuel received for 

NATO operations at Manas Air Base in Kyrgyzstan, which is purchased directly 

from a Russian company. Our engagement strategy, implemented largely through 

the NATO–Russia Council, has begun building a relationship that will encompass 

refined petroleum interoperability and help define opportunities for participating in 

joint exercises and, possibly, other military operations. Additionally, NATO recently 

stood up an Energy Security Challenges Division whose purpose is to study and prepare to deal with energy security threats to the Alliance. 

The world oil markets are flexible and would respond to counter any imbalances 

caused by Russian shut-offs. By cutting oil shipments to Europe, some price increases would occur, but refineries would continue to purchase oil from other 

sources. 

The NATO Alliance has a very limited reliance on natural gas for its operations 

and facility maintenance. During recent shut-offs, most of the reduction was made 

up from other sources and available reserves. However, these same shutoffs caused 

considerable hardship in eastern European countries, to include some NATO members, who depend on Russia for natural gas. Effects included the loss of residential 

heating and the closures of factories and businesses. However, as long as these 

shut-offs remain temporary, and are not carried out during the coldest part of the 

year, they are not likely to lead to regional instability. These cut-offs also served 

as a wake-up call to countries, most of whom are now taking steps to diversify their 

energy supplies with liquid natural gas (LNG), build more infrastructure, and liberalize their markets in order to reduce their dependence on Russian gas. 
184 

Finally, with over 50% of the Russian government’s revenue coming from oil and 

gas sales, the Kremlin cannot afford to cut off gas or oil supplies for an extended 

period of time. 

Mr. TURNER. Senior military officials have said that in the event of a ballistic missile attack, countries like Iran would probably launch multiple missiles in an effort 

to overwhelm our defenses. Is it true that the more ground based interceptors 

Northern Command has at its disposal, the higher the probability of intercepting 

a missile headed for the U.S. homeland? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. I’m comfortable in USNORTHCOM’s ability to defend the 

country from the current set of limited ballistic missile threats. Our current shot 

doctrine—the number of Ground Based Interceptors (GBIs) we fire per threat—is 

based on our best understanding of the capabilities of the Ground Based Midcourse 

Defense (GMD) Missile System. The GMD system was fielded using a spiral development concept and as such we have repeatedly evaluated the right number of GBIs 

to shoot. As we develop more robust capabilities and field them following the Phased 

Adaptive Approach (PAA) in the Ballistic Missile Defense Review report, we will 

again reevaluate the right number and types of interceptors we need to defeat incoming threats. Our understanding of the number of threats that rogue nations like 

North Korea or Iran may be able to simultaneously launch indicates we currently 

have sufficient GBIs to handle those threats. The ongoing efforts to develop the 

Hedge Strategy for the PAA will give us more insight to verify the right number 

and mix of interceptors. As such, more GBIs could be part of an enhanced solution 

countering additional numbers of threat ballistic missiles. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. GIFFORDS 

Ms. GIFFORDS. As part of the recent DoD efficiencies initiative the Air Force proposed consolidating Air Force Southern Command’s 612 Air and Space Operations 

Center with the 601st AOC based in Florida. The 612th as mentioned is aligned 

with Gen Fraser’s Southern Command and the 601st is aligned with ADM 

Winnefeld’s Northern Command. Please answer the following questions that reference this proposed consolidation: 

1. What inputs have your respective commands had on the consolidation recommendation? 

2. Discuss the importance of a dedicated Air Component to your Combatant Command’s capability to execute daily operations. 

2a. What is the impact to your Command of a disruption to Air and Space Operation Center’s mission capacity? 

General FRASER. 

1. The consolidated AOC basing criteria and concept of operations (CONOPs) 

analysis are currently being developed by the Air Force. I have discussed 

USSOUTHCOM’s requirements for Air Force support directly with the Air Force 

Chief of Staff and the Commander of Air Combat Command. I am confident the Air 

Force will execute the consolidation in a way that will support SOUTHCOM requirements. 

2. As a Combatant Commander, the Air Component provides me with the command and control and situational awareness to conduct flexible air operations in the 

SOUTHCOM area of responsibility. 

2a. With respect to the Air Operations Center, the disruption/impact of consolidation should be minimal to daily operations. Ultimately, mandated tasks will be completed and operations will continue. The operational and tactical details will have 

to be worked out by AFSOUTH and AFNORTH once the Air Force makes the decision on where to consolidate. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. The Congresswoman’s staff requested the Air Force provide a detailed concept of operations that describes how 1 AOC would support two distinct 

Air Component Commanders. Thus far this report has not been forthcoming. 

Is it possible for 2 Combatant Commands to execute Air, Space and Cyber operations from the same operations center? 

If so please describe how this would work. 

Would it require two distinct Air Component Commanders and staffs? 

General FRASER. The consolidated AOC basing criteria and concept of operations 

(CONOPs) analysis are currently being developed by the Air Force. I have discussed 

USSOUTHCOM’s requirements for Air Force support directly with the Air Force 

Chief of Staff and the Commander of Air Combat Command. I am confident the Air 

Force will execute the consolidation in a way that will support SOUTHCOM requirements. 
185 

As a Combatant Commander, the Air Component provides me with the command 

and control and situational awareness to conduct flexible air operations in the 

SOUTHCOM area of responsibility. With respect to the Air Operations Center, the 

disruption/impact of consolidation should be minimal to daily operations. Ultimately, mandated tasks will be completed and operations will continue. The operational and tactical details will have to be worked out by AFSOUTH and AFNORTH 

once the Air Force makes the decision on where to consolidate. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. As part of the recent DoD efficiencies initiative the Air Force proposed consolidating Air Force Southern Command’s 612 Air and Space Operations 

Center with the 601st AOC based in Florida. The 612th as mentioned is aligned 

with Gen Fraser’s Southern Command and the 601st is aligned with ADM 

Winnefeld’s Northern Command. 

Admiral WINNEFELD. USNORTHCOM and NORAD have provided informal input 

on critical aspects of the consolidation to Air Combat Command (ACC) as they work 

on a draft ‘‘Component Numbered Air Force Multi-Theater Air and Space Operations Center’’ Concept of Operations (CONOPS). Specifically, the USNORTHCOM 

and NORAD staffs have highlighted areas that need to be addressed in order for 

a consolidated Air Operations Center (AOC) to support all USNORTHCOM and 

NORAD missions. In addition, we ensured that ACC clearly understands that any 

changes to Canadian mission sets, personnel, and location that are identified in the 

NORAD Agreement will need to be coordinated with and approved by the Government of Canada due to Canadian Forces being assigned to NORAD. 

USNORTHCOM has one Air Component (Air Forces Northern) that executes missions such as support for federal and state authorities in the wake of a disaster. 

NORAD shares the same AOC for its Continental United States NORAD Region 

(CONR) (other AOCs support the Alaska and Canada NORAD Regions). Given the 

importance of homeland defense, a dedicated Air Component Commander and forces 

have been vested with the appropriate authorities and they have been provided the 

required training to best protect our homeland. It is important to me, given the dynamic nature of NORAD operations in particular, that my CONR Commander be 

co-located with the AOC that supports him. 

The impact of a disruption on the AOC would largely depend on the length of time 

and the reasons for a disruption. Alternate Command Center locations and procedures currently in place could mitigate potential temporary degradation to our missions. Inevitably there will be some disruption during any amalgamation of an AOC 

capability. However, I’m confident that my staff and the AOC staffs will be able to 

work through these issues to ensure that any disruption is minimized or averted. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. The Congresswoman’s staff requested the Air Force provide a detailed concept of operations that describes how 1 AOC would support two distinct 

Air Component Commanders. Thus far this report has not been forthcoming. Is it 

possible for 2 Combatant Commands to execute Air, Space and Cyber operations 

from the same operations center? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Even though I am dual-hated as the Commander for both 

commands, USNORTHCOM and NORAD have distinct mission sets. The 601st AOC 

at Tyndall Air Force Base is a ‘‘tailored’’ AOC that is manned by both U.S. DOD 

personnel and Canadian Forces. It is also configured to support the missions of both 

commands. Thus, Air, Space and Cyber operations for both USNORTHCOM and 

NORAD are already being conducted from the same operations center. Folding 

USSOUTHCOM’s air component missions into this AOC would eventually constitute 

support for a third command. 

I believe it is possible for two Combatant Commands and NORAD to execute Air, 

Space, and Cyber operations from the same operations center. Indeed, for contingencies that occur near the boundary between the USNORTHCOM and 

USSOUTHCOM Areas of Responsibility (as occurred in Haiti), there are useful 

synergies to be derived from such an arrangement. Air Combat Command (ACC) is 

developing a Concept of Operations to outline their vision of how this would work. 

USNORTHCOM, USSOUTHCOM, and NORAD will review ACC’s proposed consolidated AOC construct to determine any impact to operations. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. CONAWAY 

Mr. CONAWAY. Are you providing military training, intelligence training, etc. to 

the Mexican military? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. At the request of the Mexican military, we share lessons 

learned and conduct subject matter expert exchanges on a wide range of topics to 

assist them in their efforts to disrupt Transnational Criminal Organizations. These 

topics include planning, intelligence fusion, tactical operations and human rights. 
186 

Over the next year, we have planned approximately 250 individual subject matter 

expert information exchange events with our Mexican military partners. As an example, our Asymmetrical Conflict Executive Seminars provide insights into operational planning to counter an irregular warfare threat, while also reinforcing the 

adherence to human rights principles. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT 

Mr. SCOTT. What is the role of the U.S. Coast Guard within EUCOM’s area of 

responsibility? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. The USCG is an active and critical interagency partner for 

U.S. European Command (EUCOM), and I benefit tremendously from the presence 

of a USCG liaison officer on my staff to facilitate communications with USCG Headquarters and coordinate theater-wide Coast Guard-type security assistance. 

Major USCG operations in the region are somewhat limited based on the high 

level of professional development among the peer maritime services of most western 

European countries. Many of our European allies already conduct development efforts with less capable central and eastern European coast guard-like organizations. 

As the USCG is resource-constrained with respect to out-of-hemisphere (OOH) assets, the last USCG deployment to EUCOM was USCGC DALLAS (WHEC 716), 

which provided humanitarian assistance in the aftermath of the 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict. 

The USCG also maintains a permanent 28-man Marine Safety unit in The Netherlands to execute U.S. flagged vessel administration, port state control, international port security program, international outreach/engagement, and environmental stewardship. Other permanent or semi-permanent USCG presence includes 

maritime advisors in Albania and Georgia, an exchange helicopter pilot in the 

United Kingdom, two liaison officers with U.S. Naval Forces Europe (in Italy), and 

an attache ́ at the U.S. Embassy in Malta. 

The USCG maintains a robust International Training Division in Virginia that 

deploys small, highly effective training teams throughout the world, covering everything from maritime law enforcement to outboard engine maintenance. At any given 

time, there are two to four teams conducting such training within the EUCOM theater. The USCG also hosts approximately 20 European naval personnel per year for 

resident training at U.S. training facilities. These efforts are funded through the 

International Military Education and Training program. 

I foresee a growing role for the USCG within EUCOM, particularly in the Arctic 

over the next 10 to 40 years. I am working closely with U.S. Northern Command 

(NORTHCOM) and our Arctic partners to ensure the USCG and EUCOM are wellpositioned to manage the maritime development of that region. 

Finally, the USCG’s Seventeenth District in Alaska maintains an important and 

very positive relationship with the Russian Federation’s Border Guard Service in 

the Pacific. While this effort falls mostly within NORTHCOM’s purview, I maintain 

visibility of those activities. 

Mr. SCOTT. What is the role of ‘‘Smart Power’’ at EUCOM? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Smart power describes how U.S. European Command 

(EUCOM) combines elements of our core military mission and operations with other 

collaborative engagement activities and initiatives to maximize our resources, potential, and positive effects in the protection of U.S. interests at minimal cost to the 

U.S. taxpayer. EUCOM uses smart power to bring all elements of national power 

to bear on the interconnected, complex, and dynamic problem sets we face in the 

21st century. By blending multiple aspects of national influence, we seek to improve 

our relationships and effectiveness with partners, allies, even potential adversaries. 

At EUCOM, we strive to leverage our military capability with in-stride diplomacy 

at every opportunity. This is one of the reasons why I appointed a Civilian Deputy 

Commander at EUCOM Headquarters who, as a U.S. Ambassador, brings extensive 

and unique diplomatic expertise, insight, and skills to all we do at EUCOM. Her 

contributions add an invaluable lens through which we view, plan, and execute our 

many initiatives, engagements, and operations. In addition, given the increasing 

complexity of the modern security environment, I am convinced of the need for, and 

have taken active measures to incorporate, a whole-of-government approach to 

many of the challenges we face at EUCOM. Upon assuming command, I directed 

the creation of a separate and distinct Interagency Partnering Directorate at 

EUCOM Headquarters—on par with our Intelligence, Operations, and Strategy & 

Plans Directorates—which includes representatives from seven non-DoD departments and agencies. These fully integrated EUCOM team members are empowered 

to engage, coordinate, and collaborate across the EUCOM enterprise, bringing a 
187 

unique perspective to our Combatant Command’s operations and responsibilities 

and ensuring unity-of-effort across the full spectrum of national security issues. In 

addition, we maintain Offices of Defense Cooperation in thirty-eight countries across 

the theater. 

One recent example of smart power was EUCOM’s coordination and execution of 

military airlift to bring over thirty tons of desperately needed fire-fighting equipment to Russia during the wildfires that raged across that country last summer. We 

provided similar assistance to Israel as it faced its wildfires last year as well. 

Finally, smart power also requires that we understand the breadth of the challenges we face every day. For that reason, I have instituted several programs designed to broaden our collective perspective for, as I tell my team often, ‘‘no one of 

us is as smart as all of us working together.’’ Those programs include a European 

Partnership Outreach Program, reaching out to influential Europeans in their capital cities; a EUCOM Public-Private Outreach division, engaging and leveraging the 

private sector to find innovative solutions to theater challenges; a Next Generation 

Advisory Panel, which serves as a forum to share ideas with young, professional, 

up-and-coming Europeans; a ‘‘Distinguished Authors’’ series at EUCOM Headquarters, which exposes my staff to distinguished thinkers in the national security 

and international relations arenas; a foreign language training program; and multiple social networking initiatives to take advantage of the unique and rapidly expanding connectivity available through cyberspace. 

Æ