U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

i 

45–681 2009

[H.A.S.C. No. 110–173] 

DEFEATING THE IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE 

DEVICE (IED) AND OTHER ASYMMETRIC 

THREATS: TODAY’S EFFORTS AND 

TOMORROW’S REQUIREMENTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 
(II) 

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas, Chairman 

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

STEVE DETERESA, Professional Staff Member 

THOMAS HAWLEY, Professional Staff Member 

SASHA ROGERS, Research Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2008 

Page 

HEARING: 

Tuesday, September 16, 2008, Defeating the Improvised Explosive Device 

(IED) and Other Asymmetric Threats: Today’s Efforts and Tomorrow’s Requirements ............................................................................................................ 1 

APPENDIX: 

Tuesday, September 16, 2008 ................................................................................. 27 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 

DEFEATING THE IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE (IED) AND OTHER 

ASYMMETRIC THREATS: TODAY’S EFFORTS AND TOMORROW’S REQUIREMENTS 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Akin, Hon. W. Todd, a Representative from Missouri, Ranking Member, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee ............................................................. 3 

Snyder, Hon. Vic, a Representative from Arkansas, Chairman, Oversight 

and Investigations Subcommittee ....................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Beasley, William, Director, Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell, Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) .......................... 7 

Berkson, Bradley M., Director, Program Analysis and Evaluation, Office of 

the Secretary of Defense ...................................................................................... 4 

Kamiya, Maj. Gen. Jason K., USA, Director, Joint Training Directorate (J7), 

U.S. Joint Forces Command ................................................................................ 8 

Matthews, Tom, Director, Warfighter Requirements and Evaluations, Office 

of the Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence) ............................................... 7 

Metz, Lt. Gen. Thomas F., USA, Director, Joint Improvised Explosive Device 

(IED) Defeat Organization .................................................................................. 5 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Akin, Hon. W. Todd .......................................................................................... 33 

Beasley, William ............................................................................................... 47 

Berkson, Bradley M. ......................................................................................... 36 

Kamiya, Maj. Gen. Jason K. ............................................................................ 49 

Matthews, Tom ................................................................................................. 45 

Metz, Lt. Gen. Thomas F. ................................................................................ 40 

Snyder, Hon. Vic ............................................................................................... 31 
Page

IV 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Dr. Snyder ......................................................................................................... 61 
(1) 

DEFEATING THE IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE (IED) 

AND OTHER ASYMMETRIC THREATS: TODAY’S EFFORTS AND TOMORROW’S REQUIREMENTS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE, 

Washington, DC, Tuesday, September 16, 2008. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:22 p.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Vic Snyder (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. VIC SNYDER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARKANSAS, CHAIRMAN, OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE 

Dr. SNYDER. The hearing will come to order. Good afternoon. We 

apologize for the delay and a couple of votes. 

Welcome to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

hearing on Defeating Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) and 

Other Asymmetric Threats. This is the committee’s first public 

hearing to discuss these issues. 

The reason we are here today is that the IED remains the number one cause of casualties to the coalition and the forces in Iraq. 

More than half of the U.S. deaths due to enemy action have been 

the result of IEDs. Although IEDs are not a new threat, they have 

been used with unprecedented frequency in Iraq, and are on the 

rise in Afghanistan. They promise to be a weapon of choice for a 

long time, potentially, into the future, around the world. 

Since former Central Command (CENTCOM) commander, General Abizaid, called for a Manhattan Project-like effort five years 

ago to defeat IEDs, Congress has provided nearly $14 billion to the 

Department of Defense’s (DOD) efforts. This effort has grown from 

a 12-man Army task force to the Joint IED Defeat Organization, 

or JIEDDO, which currently employs a staff of about 3,600 government, military and contract personnel. 

We have two primary questions today: How is JIEDDO doing 

against the threat? And, second, what should be the future of 

JIEDDO? JIEDDO’s mission is to defeat the IED as a weapon of 

strategic influence, so today’s hearing will provide an opportunity 

to hear how the organization is doing in this critical and difficult 

mission, and how we measure success in this fight. 

We are also here to discuss the future of JIEDDO’s capabilities. 

While the Deputy Secretary of Defense has made the institutionalization of JIEDDO one of its top 25 transformation priorities to 

complete before the end of the year, it is no surprise that there are 
2 

plenty of opinions about what to do with an organization or a mission that is well-funded. 

The Department itself has done two recent key assessments. The 

Program Analysis and Evaluation Study Group recommended leaving JIEDDO intact, and to start migrating its budget into the base 

defense budget. To this point, almost all of its funding has been in 

the supplemental, and, therefore, not authorized to the House 

Armed Services Committee. 

On the other hand, the Combatant Commanders’ Senior 

Warfighter Forum, while recognizing the accomplishments of 

JIEDDO, question whether some of its capabilities were now mature enough to transition to standard defense, combatant commander (COCOM) or service organizations. 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is also conducting 

a study on JIEDDO, on behalf of this committee, authorized last 

year, and our staff has been working with them. 

In the best of all possible worlds, we would have enough money 

to go around for all good ideas, and it is clear that JIEDDO has 

had many good ideas. In this world, though, our responsibility is 

to make sure we can balance funding between many must-have capabilities. 

One question we in the Department have to consider is what we 

will do as other asymmetric threats come along. Should this 

JIEDDO inherit them, or will that dilute its focus, which is claimed 

as its core strength? Should we build a new JIEDDO-like organization for each new threat as it comes along? Can we afford that if 

we don’t transition mature capabilities to standard organizations? 

And we present those questions and thoughts today as open 

questions, because I don’t think there is any member on this subcommittee that comes in with any prejudice or bias or answers to 

the questions and thoughts that have come forward. 

Our panel of witnesses represents JIEDDO, the Department and 

Joint Forces Command: Mr. Bradley Berkson, the director of Programs Analysis and Evaluation at the Office of the Secretary of Defense; Lieutenant General Thomas Metz, Director of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, JIEDDO; Mr. Tom 

Matthews, Director of the Warfighter Requirements and Evaluations, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense; Mr. William 

Beasley, Director of the Joint Rapid Acquisitions Cell, Office of the 

Under Secretary of Defense; Major General Jason Kamiya, Director 

of the Joint Training Directorate, U.S. Joint Forces Command. 

I also wanted to acknowledge the presence today of six distinguished members of the Afghan parliament, who are attending 

today as part of the House Democracy Assistance Commission’s 

second Committee Operations Seminar. 

Welcome. Let us give them a round of applause. 

[Applause.] 

Dr. SNYDER. We appreciate you all so much, for being here. And 

I would like to tell you that the delay because of votes is atypical, 

but it is not. So you have learned one of our experiences around 

here already, today. 

Mr. Akin is recognized for any comments he wants to make. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Snyder can be found in the Appendix on page 31.] 
3 

STATEMENT OF HON. W. TODD AKIN, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM MISSOURI, RANKING MEMBER, OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE 

Mr. AKIN. Thank you, Chairman Snyder, and, good afternoon to 

the witnesses. 

We appreciate your all being here today. 

Today’s hearing is very timely, for a number of reasons, not the 

least of which is the pending change of Administrations. There is 

no question that the new Secretary of Defense will want to continue the Joint Improvised Explosive Defeat Organization’s excellent work. But the organizational questions, and how to best sustain this concentrated effort are difficult. And it is important to get 

those issues on public record. 

I applaud the Department’s initiative in building such a comprehensive, effective organization, as JIEDDO. As we know, IEDs 

quickly grew into the most deadly weapon deployed against our 

troops, and it appears to be insurgents’ weapon of choice for the 

foreseeable future, anywhere in the world. As long as we have the 

most powerful military in the world, no one will attack us directly. 

Asymmetric threats will be the order of the day. And IEDs are 

tailor-made for insurgents—cheap, made from readily available materials, easy to build, employ and trigger. 

Obviously, we need to institutionalize the competencies of 

JIEDDO to counter this ongoing threat, as well as the threat from 

powerful explosive form penetrators, EFPs, to our forces. That said, 

JIEDDO was a large organization, working directly for Secretary of 

Defense, with responsibilities and acquisition, training, doctrine, 

intelligence, and operations; combining the functions of a combatant command and a military department in an ad hoc fashion to 

solve an important, but narrow, problem. 

As an added complication, JIEDDO funding is provided through 

supplementals, which will not continue forever. The witnesses will 

be relieved to hear that I do not have an answer to this very complex problem that I want to impose on the Department. 

I do think the mission of JIEDDO is critical, and must continue, 

with two caveats. First, I don’t see how JIEDDO can reasonably be 

sustained for the long term with the current structure and funding 

mechanism. Second, I believe JIEDDO may be performing some redundant functions that are better left to the military services or 

combatant commands. 

Thank you, again, for our witnesses, for being here today, and to 

address these and other important questions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Akin can be found in the Appendix on page 33.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Thanks, Mr. Akin. 

What we will do is we will begin down here with Mr. Berkson, 

and come on down the row. 

We have that very attractive clock in front of you that goes from 

green light; and with one minute, goes to a yellow light, and then 

to the red light. It is a five-minute clock. I put that there more for 

your indication of where you are at. Don’t feel like you have to 

come to an abrupt stop when it goes on. It just gives you a sense 
4 

of where we are at. But, then, I know members will have questions, 

also. 

So, Mr. Berkson, we will begin with you. 

STATEMENT OF BRADLEY M. BERKSON, DIRECTOR, PROGRAM 

ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

OF DEFENSE 

Mr. BERKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am Brad Berkson. I am the director of the—— 

Dr. SNYDER. Pull that in. Pull those microphones in close to you, 

if you would. 

Mr. BERKSON. Sir, I am Brad Berkson. I am the director of the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Program Analysis and Evaluation organization. I am joined today by Lieutenant General Tom 

Metz, from JIEDDO, Tom Matthews, from the Under Secretary for 

Intelligence’s office, William Beasley from Acquisition, Technology 

and Logistics (AT&L), and Major General Jason Kamiya, from 

Joint Forces Command. 

The Department of Defense (DOD) aggressively supports 

JIEDDO and its institutionalization. In 2006, Deputy Secretary 

England established JIEDDO for the Department’s efforts to rapidly and systematically reduce the effects of IEDs against our 

forces. Since then, JIEDDO has done a tremendous job, and has 

acted to respond to the disruptive threats posed by IEDs, and the 

networks behind them. 

The Secretary and its most senior military and civilian advisors 

have concluded there is a continuing need for this organization, 

and we have done—indicated so by funding JIEDDO in the base 

budget to the tune of about $500 million, in both the 2008 and 

2009 requests. In fact, we have, in the future year’s defense plan, 

increased that funding close to $1 billion by fiscal year 2013. 

The enduring value of an organization like JIEDDO, that rapidly 

acquires and fields IED capabilities, and the fact that we funded 

it in the base budget, continues to support our view that IED and 

its defeat will be important in the coming years. That is why we 

put it in the base budget. 

As we are looking at 2010 and, and this committee has mentioned, looking at the future, it may be, in fact, that we need to 

increase the funding in the future base budgets, for this organization to continue. 

Currently, JIEDDO reports to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, 

and he works in close coordination with the vice chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs. The direct linkage between JIEDDO and our most 

senior leadership reflects the priority this has in protecting our 

troops; furthermore, it facilities oversight at the highest levels of 

the Department. 

Congress has entrusted the department for JIEDDO, and represents—and this senior-leadership oversight of that—represents 

our effort to manage that at the top level of the organization. 

Finally, as we think about institutionalizing this organization, 

the talent and the people at JIEDDO will be critical. Funding this 

organization in the base budget and indicating that we are committed to it through that funding, indicates to people that General 

Metz has to hire that we are going to support this organization in 
5 

the future. And I think it sends a very strong signal to those people 

when we do so. 

Finally, the fact that the DOD has engaged in this counter-IED 

fight has potential for duplication. Here, again, having this single 

point of contact in the JIEDDO organization provides an opportunity to have a joint forum for collecting and synchronizing all of 

these issues in one place; thus, JIEDDO is able to leverage the 

DOD and interagency, including intelligence, rapid acquisition, research and development (R&D) and training, and bring a formal 

array of forces toward the single end of saving lives. 

Our soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen deserve nothing less. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Berkson can be found in the Appendix on page 36.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Berkson. 

General Metz. 

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. THOMAS F. METZ, USA, DIRECTOR, 

JOINT IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE (IED) DEFEAT ORGANIZATION 

General METZ. It is a pleasure to appear before you today. 

Mr. Chairman, my opening remarks will be abbreviated. Therefore, I respectfully submit a more detailed written statement for 

you, for the record, and look forward to speaking in more detail 

during the question-and-answer period of today’s hearing. 

Leading the Joint IED Defeat Organization is an honor and a 

genuine pleasure. I represent an organization staffed with personnel who passionately serve our men and women in uniform with 

a keen sense of urgency. 

I am often asked if the IED threat can be removed from the battlefield, and my answer is, ‘‘No.’’ In its most fundamental form, the 

IED is a lethal ambush. And men have been ambushing their enemies for thousands of years. Over those years, the ambush has become more and more lethal. However we can, and we must, defeat 

the systemic use of IEDs to strategically influence our citizens and 

leaders. 

To date, our success has been dramatic. In June 2003, the enemy 

generated more than one coalition-force casualty with each IED he 

emplaced. Today, he must emplace over nine IEDs to cause one 

casualty. The combined impact of that trend, and the continued 

emphasis on disrupting the capabilities of insurgent networks to 

generate, and then place, IEDs, has dramatically improved the survivability of our forces. 

As DOD’s leader for counter-IED investments, we rapidly integrate the efforts of academia, industry and interagency, joint and 

allied forces, to focus and coordinate our investments. We are currently working on 301 counter-IED initiatives, and support a 

science-and-technology-investment portfolio of 78 technology 

projects. 

Additionally, we are currently responding to 87 Joint Urgent 

Operational Needs Statements from our warfighters, with 109 separate initiatives. Our rapid acquisition process allows us to provide 

the warfighter with valuable lifesaving solutions in a period of 30 

days to 24 months, depending on the complexity of the technology. 
6 

During our first year, defeating the device was our central focus 

in order to save lives and limbs of our warfighters. As our positive 

impact grew along this line of operation, we increased our focus on 

the offense, attacking networks that finance, supply, recruit, construct, emplace, initiate and record IED attacks. 

Our focus on the attack of the network led us to developing the 

Counter-IED Operations and Integration Center, commonly called 

the COIC. The COIC is a paradigm change, because the warfighter 

defines what is needed from the bottom up. Requests for support 

from the COIC have grown significantly from 84 per month in 

2007, to a current rate in 2008 of almost 170 per month. 

In January 2008, the COIC assumed the support role to the 

Baghdad Fusion Cell. Our efforts have led to the detention of 66 

high-value individuals. During the past 18 months, in total, the 

COIC has supported 213 missions, with a result in the kill or capture of 691 high-value targets. 

In order to effectively deliver new equipment and network-attack 

enablers to our warfighters, we provide the force with comprehensive training support, as well. We provide this critical training support by rapidly synchronizing input from our deployed field teams, 

unit debriefs, and in-theater surveys, by migrating the results to 

all four services’ training bases to ensure deploying warfighters are 

training against the most current threat, using proven tactics, techniques and procedures. 

We remain DOD’s lead for strategic planning in order to develop 

goals and provide priorities to counter IEDs for the foreseeable future in the long war. We develop and publish DOD’s counter-IED 

guidance to support the combatant commander’s planning efforts, 

and continue to further refine and report DOD’s counter-IED performance measures to the Department’s senior leaders. 

Mr. Chairman, we are making great progress. However, in spite 

of our success, the IED remains the enemy’s weapon of choice in 

Afghanistan and Iraq. We currently see over 1,400 IED events in 

Iraq and Afghanistan, and over 350 elsewhere in the world, per 

month. These numbers can go higher because the enemy can continue to exploit readily available technology and rapidly produce 

IEDs in an unending cycle of innovation. 

We must continue to apply pressure and make IEDs too costly 

to produce, and too risky to employ, by relentlessly attacking networks. The Joint IED Defeat Organization is organized to combat 

this critical threat. 

In closing, we look to the future. JIEDDO will aggressively continue to lead DOD’s efforts to find and develop capabilities to 

counter IEDs and to enable attacks against the networks that employ them. We must continue to anticipate and innovate faster 

than a intelligent, ruthless and resourceful enemy. 

I attribute JIEDDO’s success to the flexible funding that Congress has provided in the Joint IED Defeat Fund, the Department’s 

support to the synergy of our effort, and the passionate professionals working in JIEDDO, both in the U.S. and deployed. 

I will do everything in my power to maintain and enhance that 

passion and sense of urgency of our personnel. Our goal remains 

clear: To defeat the IED as weapons of strategic influence. 

And I look forward to your questions, sir. 
7 

[The prepared statement of General Metz can be found in the Appendix on page 40.] 

Dr. SNYDER. I thank the gentleman. 

Next, Mr. Matthews. 

STATEMENT OF TOM MATTHEWS, DIRECTOR, WARFIGHTER 

REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATIONS, OFFICE OF THE UNDER 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (INTELLIGENCE) 

Mr. MATTHEWS. Yes. Good afternoon, Chairman Snyder, Ranking 

Member Akin and distinguished members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the commitment of the 

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI) to 

the JIEDDO defeat organization, and their important mission. 

I am Tom Matthews, the director of Warfighter Requirements 

and Evaluations, within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Warfighter Support. 

I have been associated with JIEDDO and their efforts since July 

of 2004. Today, USDI continues to provide policy oversight of 

JIEDDO for the purposes of ensuring that JIEDDO receives the intelligence-policy support they need, relating to the IED problem. 

Over the years, as JIEDDO has evolved and matured, I have 

seen much value added in their efforts to unravel the IED network, 

counter the devices themselves, and train U.S. forces to face the 

greatest threat on the battlefield. 

We must continue to have a focused effort. I am pleased to be 

here with you today to answer your questions regarding intelligence support to JIEDDO. Thank you very much for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Matthews can be found in the 

Appendix on page 45.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Matthews. 

Mr. Beasley. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM BEASLEY, DIRECTOR, JOINT RAPID 

ACQUISITION CELL, OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF 

DEFENSE (ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY AND LOGISTICS) 

Mr. BEASLEY. Chairman Snyder, Congressman Akin, committee 

members, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony 

today. 

I am Bill Beasley, the acting director of the Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell. The JRAC acts as the combatant commander’s agent, addressing the joint urgent operational needs and immediate 

warfighter needs of their commands. 

Established jointly by the Under Secretaries of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, and the comptroller, the JRAC 

receives, for timely action, joint urgent operational needs that have 

been certified by the combatant command, and validated by the 

Joint Staff. The JRAC engages with many organizations to provide 

solutions to the combatant command’s needs. 

Since 2004, the United States Central Command has identified 

several hundred joint urgent operational needs, of which about half 

are counter-IED related. With some exceptions, the counter-IED 

joint urgent operational needs are provided by the JRAC to the 

Joint IED Defeat Organization for action. 
8 

The JRAC ensures actions are accomplished through its participation in the Joint IED Defeat Organization’s management and advisory boards, and supporting oversight of the organization for the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense. 

The JRAC has supported specific Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization actions. In October 2005, at the request 

of the Deputy Secretary, the JRAC provided management assistance and oversight to meet the significant growth in United States 

Central Command requirements for counter radio-controlled electronic warfighter jammers, commonly called CREW. 

This responsibility was transferred in 2007 to the Navy, once the 

CREW single-service manager was established. The JRAC additionally assisted the Joint IED Defeat Organization in receiving determinations by the Secretary of Defense to use rapid-acquisition 

authority to expedite crew-procurement actions. 

The JIEDDO has been an effective, an efficient and timely provider of capability, from my perspective, to the warfighter. 

This concludes my brief remarks. And I look forward to your 

questions. 

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

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you. 

General Kamiya. 

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. JASON K. KAMIYA, USA, DIRECTOR, 

JOINT TRAINING DIRECTORATE (J7), U.S. JOINT FORCES 

COMMAND 

General KAMIYA. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Akin, and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of General Jim Mattis, as the commander of 

U.S. Joint Force Command (USJFCOM), thank you for inviting me 

to appear before you today to discuss the many ways that 

USJFCOM and JIEDDO support each other in the execution of 

joint training. 

I believe that our two organizations have worked very hard in 

the past several years, in concert with the combat commands and 

services, and have obtained much synergy in providing joint-force 

commanders and staffs the most realistic training environment 

possible, to meet the challenges posed in defeating IEDs as a weapon of strategic influence. 

But I believe that there is much more than can be done. As we 

look to the future, and as IEDs and other asymmetric threats continue to evolve, I believe that it is only natural for JFCOM and 

JIEDDO to expand and formalize the training and support we provide each other. 

We look forward to future discussions that will lead to clear definition of what the support will entail, and its attendant resource 

requirements. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions. 

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

Appendix on page 49.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you all for your testimony. Our timekeepers 

are in the back there, and we will put ourselves on the five-minute 

clock. And I will begin the questioning. 
9 

General Metz, where do you see the issue, currently, of how 

other asymmetric threats fit into JIEDDO? 

General METZ. Well, I think the enemies of our great country 

recognize they—as you mentioned earlier, they are not going to 

meet us in the deep blue sea or the light-blue sky, or in the maneuver battlefields that we have been so successful at. He will take us 

to a regular warfare the use those asymmetrical weapons. 

So as he evolves from the IED, I think that we will be in a position to help the Department move in that direction—and working 

hard to—to figure out how to get ahead of the enemy in that 

thought pattern. We may not pick it right, but we would like to be 

on the street corner—his next asymmetric weapon, in order to go 

ahead and begin to design the defeat of those future weapons. 

Dr. SNYDER. Well, two follow-up questions: One is that the 

thought has been that the effectiveness that JIEDDO has had has 

been because of its very laser-like focus on IEDs. 

If you start expanding the list—you and I could sit down—everybody in this room would come up with a list of potential other 

asymmetric threats. And I will bet, with a crowd like this, we could 

come up with a list of about 80, 207—I don’t know what the list 

would be. 

Are you at risk of kind of drifting into losing that laser-like focus 

on that one threat of IEDs, or is there going to be a formal decision-making process that will be transparent to the Congress, 

transparent to all the folks involved in issues, that will say, ‘‘We 

have now made a decision that it is no longer going to be just an 

IED-defeat organization. It is going to be IEDs and drug use. It is 

going to be IEDs and cyber-threat’’? 

I mean, what is the process going to be, or is it going to be a 

drifting into other areas? 

General METZ. Sir, I don’t think we will drift. We have achieved 

our success because of that laser focus. And as you have correctly 

pointed out, if we open the aperture too wide, too quickly, we will 

lose that laser focus. 

The Department directive that gives me my mission statement 

and all the specified task—it is very clear that the IED is what we 

need for its strategic influence. 

So I think that the first step would be the Department would 

issue a new directive that would redefine. And I am confident we 

would be very careful not to open the aperture very much, so that 

we could continue the laser focus. 

But that laser focus has taught us a lot, especially about attacking human networks. And I think there is a potential to open the 

aperture a little bit, but certainly not enough that diffuses our effort and lets us wander too far. We need to maintain that synergy 

and laser focus on IEDs, currently, but maybe an asymmetric 

weapon, in the future. 

Dr. SNYDER. Your discussion about other asymmetric threats—is 

that currently a discussion topic? There has not been any, in your 

words, ‘‘widening of the aperture,’’ to this point? 

General METZ. No, sir. That discussion is very informal. And one 

that I engage in very cautiously, because I do not want to lose the 

focus that we have gained with the IED. 
10 

Dr. SNYDER. General Kamiya, in your written statement, you list 

some potential concerns about any changes in how JIEDDO is 

structured. And I forget how you termed the phrase about the, oh, 

‘‘inherent risk to the warfighter in restructuring JIEDDO during a 

time of direct engagement with the enemy.’’ General Metz has used 

the term several times here today, ‘‘the long war.’’ 

If we put on hold all things that changes we think government 

might need to do, because we are involved in a war, we could be 

trying to declare a time-out for a long time. I mean, I don’t think 

that is a very good reason not to want to do things more efficiently. 

Now, you may have concluded that there isn’t any reason for 

change. And I accept that as one of the options. But to say that 

because we are engaged in direct combat, we should not consider 

changing structure—that, you know, creates the certainty that we 

will have some problems—perhaps not with JIEDDO, but certainly 

other areas of government, if we are going to be resistant to any 

change because we are at war. 

How do you respond to that? 

General KAMIYA. First of all, let me clarify that the inherent risk 

in changing what JIEDDO’s clear focus is today is a consideration. 

It is not a reason to not move and change. 

It is a consideration that must be accounted for in terms of, 

‘‘Where does the risk lie, and for how long?’’ And for planning purposes, we just want to make sure those questions are answered as 

we move forward. 

Dr. SNYDER. My time is up. 

Mr. Akin. 

Mr. AKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The hearing we are having today, to some degree, follows in the 

footsteps of one that was a more closed hearing. I think that the 

thing that becomes kind of a question is, you start with 12 people. 

They end up with 3,600 people. 

How, exactly, does that work? And do we have, within the Army, 

or within the military, kind of these specialist organizations? How 

many of them do we need, and how does this thing fit in the funding? How does it work in terms of the overall organizational structure? 

I think, obviously, the first thing to do, when you have a serious 

problem, is to organize to fix a problem and get it under control, 

which you have all done a great job of doing. The question, then, 

is, later: How do you integrate that, and how do you put that together? How do you fund it, and, structurally, how do you define 

exactly where the limits and sides of the thing are? And how do 

you not run into the problem that we have thousands of examples 

here at our capital of all kinds of overlapping and duplication? 

And so I think that was part of the chairman’s comments. They 

are certainly some of mine—kind of a question mark. How does 

that fit in in the future? That is why I started with a new administration. 

And Mr. Berkson, this—obviously, you don’t have to solve this 

problem, you know? Or probably don’t, anyway. But, still, you have 

had a good perspective, and you are taking a look future-wise. Your 

job is to be planning out as to how this works. 
11 

If there are any comments along those lines, it would be helpful 

to us, I think. 

Mr. BERKSON. Thank you, Congressman. 

You have highlighted a bunch of the challenges of this organization. First of all, you have given—the Congress has given—the Department a very rare—— 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Berkson, would you pull that microphone right 

close to you? 

Mr. BERKSON. I am sorry. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you. 

Mr. BERKSON. The Congress has given the Department an opportunity, through the JIEDDO fund, to, literally, work inside the enemy’s time loop. We have taken that so seriously as to have elevated its oversight to the Deputy Secretary, and to keep them laser 

focused on what you have authorized us to do. 

The challenge will be, as we go forward—as those threats emerge 

and evolve, we may, in the future, have to look outside of IEDs as 

that asymmetric threat that is killing our people. And this is the 

challenge that we have been dealing with, as we think about the 

future. 

We have funded this organization. We think it should be institutionalized into the future. But, again, me telling you, in 2013, what 

exact technologies, training, organizational solutions, intelligence 

integration, we will have to have, is a very difficult task. So this 

is the dilemma that we think about as a country. 

Mr. AKIN. Do you see us transitioning, in a sense, from IEDs to 

other types of asymmetric threats that are similar characteristics? 

Do you see it expanding that way? 

Mr. BERKSON. As they have ever come up, we have been very 

quick to take them out of the charter of JIEDDO. So, so far, things 

other than IEDs are not in JIEDDO’s charter, one, and two, the 

primary threat to our troops on the battlefield is this particular 

weapon. 

If you think about the things needed to push in another direction, it would be the enemy has found an alternative asymmetric 

tool that has deadly effects on our people, and that, again, we need 

to focus and shift on. 

But I think all three of those have to come together at once; the 

threat, its impact, and our need to respond to it to save lives. And, 

again, if any of those three are missing, it is difficult to imagine 

that you would push them toward another direction, until we actually needed to deal with it. 

Mr. AKIN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Bartlett, for five minutes. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. 

And thank you for your testimony. 

Our defense establishment faces a difficult decision. That is, 

‘‘Where do we spend the limited dollars that we have in preparing 

to better prosecute the kinds of military activities we are engaged 

in now, which involves enemies that, in no way, even approach 

being a peer—or, to invest in the kind of equipments that we will 

need if, in the future, we have a peer and we, certainly, could have 

a peer in the future?’’ 
12 

The granddaddy of all asymmetric weapons, of course, is a nuclear-generated electromagnetic pulse (EMP). And this isn’t just 

the asymmetric weapon of choice for a peer. It is also a potential 

weapon of choice for a relatively small country, or even a non-state 

entity. Because all you need is a trans-steamer, a Scud launcher, 

which can be purchased on the open market, and a crude nuclear 

weapon. 

The ultimate nuclear weapon, of course, was described to us by 

the Russian generals, who told our EMP Commission that the Soviets had developed, and they had a enhanced EMP weapon that 

would produce 200 kilovolts at the center, which, if detonated 300 

miles high over Iowa or Nebraska, would produce an EMP laydown of 100 kilovolts per meter at the margins of our country. 

That, I think, is considerably higher than anything we ever built 

to, or tested to. During the Clinton years, because money was 

short, we waived EMP hardening on almost all of our new weapons 

systems. 

If, in battle, there was a large EMP lay-down, like 100 kilovolts 

per meter—it could be very much higher than that at the center— 

how much warfighting capability would we retain? 

Mr. BERKSON. Congressman, I am aware of some of the work 

done by the EMP Commission. The exact response to, and our system’s capabilities against EMP are classified, frankly. And we 

would have to have a kind of a closed session to actually discuss 

that. 

So I would need to follow up with you on that. 

Mr. BARTLETT. What I am told for an open hearing like this, is 

that our command control, we hope, is reasonably hardened. That 

is like me having my brain and spinal cord work okay, but no arms 

and legs. I am not sure that hardening command and control when 

you have got nothing to control, after a robust EMP lay-down, 

makes much sense. 

Would you agree? 

Mr. BERKSON. At the level of classification we have here, I can’t 

really respond to the exact capabilities of our weapons systems in 

an EMP situation. 

Mr. BARTLETT. And as vulnerable as our military is, the commission found themselves very much concerned about what happened 

to our national infrastructure. They issued a second report, focused 

primarily on the national infrastructure. 

How do we make the decision as to where to spend our precious 

dollar? And a robust EMP lay-down, nationwide, would, as the 

EMP Commission said, ‘‘essentially end life as we know it.’’ 

There is a book that is about to come out, called, ‘‘One Second 

After,’’ which is a very interesting one-year scenario about what 

might happen. How do we determine what the real priorities are? 

Isn’t this kind of an example of tyranny of the urgent? Clearly, 

these things we are doing now are urgent. The tyranny of the urgent—almost always, the urgent sweeps the important off the 

table. How do we make these decisions? 

Mr. BERKSON. Sir, I am the executive secretary of what is called 

the Deputy’s Advisory Working Group. We are a group of folks that 

support the Deputy Secretary; includes the under secretaries of the 
13 

Defense Department, and the major service players, both military 

and civilian. 

And, literally, two to three times a week, we meet to discuss all 

of the resource-allocation decisions for the Department. We receive 

classified briefings. We talk about the various tradeoffs that are involved. And we have deliberations that, you know, are very heated 

and contentious. In fact, my major role in that process is bringing 

facts and information to the table to weigh those balance and 

trades. 

So our process is that. We look at those various tradeoffs. We, 

then, make our recommendation to the president. And he submits 

them to you. And that is how the process works from our side. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Johnson, for five minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And since I just arrived, I have not had the benefit of hearing 

the testimony that has been given. And so, therefore, I will decline 

to ask any questions. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you. 

Thank you. 

I wanted to ask—I will start with General Metz—but anyone else 

who wants to respond: What is your endpoint? Very specifically, 

the IED Defeat Organization—what is the endpoint for when you 

say, ‘‘Mission accomplished. We have got 3,600 people. We will 

transfer 3,500 of them to other organizations’’? 

General METZ. Sir, that endpoint, in my mind, would be the defeat of the IED in Afghanistan and Iraq—its strategic influence— 

as my mission statement from the DOD directive indicates. 

I would certainly fall a little bit short of an implied task, which 

would be to ensure that the organization was ready to move on to 

that next potential asymmetric threat. 

But I think, given the current DOD directive that asks me to 

lead, advocate and coordinate all of DOD’s efforts against the IED 

as a strategic weapon, the end game would be—is when we defeat 

it. 

Again, as I said in my opening statement, we won’t run the ambush off the battlefield, but I think the systemic use of the IED as 

a strategic weapon can be defeated by making it so risky to those 

in the network—to their life, limb or capture—and the cost to the 

network constantly going up—that they move on to something else. 

So that would be the end game that I would see. 

Dr. SNYDER. There is not some measurable goal, or—you, in your 

statement, specifically mentioned the drop in numbers of attacks in 

Iraq, and the increase in Afghanistan. 

You are not watching those numbers or have articulated a specific number at which you would say, ‘‘That is——’’ 

General METZ. No, sir. We have not, because I think that would 

be dangerous, given the influencing fact of just a few—— 

Dr. SNYDER. Right. 

General METZ. It would be dangerous to establish a number just 

above or below that—— 

Dr. SNYDER. Right. 

General METZ [continuing]. Breakpoint. 

Dr. SNYDER. And, I think you are right. 
14 

Do any of the rest of you have any comment on that issue of, 

‘‘What is our endpoint?’’ You all should feel free to jump in to any 

of these questions, by the way. 

Mr. BEASLEY. Sir, I would just say the—you know—— 

Dr. SNYDER. [OFF MIKE.] 

Mr. BEASLEY. It is largely a force-protection measure. So as long 

as we have troops in contact and in risk, in harm’s way, you need 

to continue that effort for, if nothing else, the force-protection aspect of it. 

Dr. SNYDER. Some of combatant commanders believe that 

JIEDDO is a temporary organization to rapidly focus on this problem of IEDs, but that operations and funding should be transferred 

to existing organizations, when appropriate. 

How do you respond to those thoughts? 

General METZ. Sir, my response is that, within a couple of 

months of replacing General Meigs, the Deputy Secretary reiterated that we would remain in our current form. We would continue 

to work for him. We, already, have worked some money into the 

base budget. 

I took that as—in my own mission analysis—that we were in a 

long war, and this was going to be a tough weapon system to beat. 

And I believe that we must continue the passion that we have got 

to beat this particular weapons system. And I think we are on that 

path. 

Dr. SNYDER. Any other comments? 

Mr. Berkson. 

Mr. BERKSON. I guess I would amplify that. I looked, on the app 

of the Deputy Secretary, at this particular question. We have been 

looking at this question and evaluating it on an ongoing basis. 

The challenge in an organization with three-plus-million people 

and $500 billion is you are going to have seams between functions, 

between organization services. This organization has been set up to 

optimize a defeat of IEDs. So the seams that are created for this 

structure are between services or functions or other pieces of the 

organization. 

We looked at, and continue to evaluate, the pieces of JIEDDO, 

and where it might fit, and how it would connect, and come back 

to the concern that optimizing for defeating IEDs and their networks is the key issue we want to organize this particular function 

for right now. 

So you take those various tradeoffs, and you say, ‘‘Right now, it 

makes sense for the Department to be optimizing for that end, 

given the impact that these are having on our forces.’’ 

I think as that either changes, or other requirements emerge, 

that is a continuing piece of work we will be looking at. 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Akin. 

Mr. AKIN. It was, I think, mentioned in the previous hearing that 

one of the things that you had done with the organization was to 

reinforce the structure with people that had had, actually—like detectives from police departments and people who were used to 

doing, basically, criminal investigation—that type of research and 

that type of logical, piece-by-piece thinking, in order to try and 

move from evidence to find a direct suspect. 
15 

What percentage of people in your organization have that kind 

of a background, and do you have enough people to draw from? 

General METZ. I can get to you the exact percentage. Of an organization of over 3,000, it will be a small number. But that small 

number is making a tremendous impact. 

And you are referring to the law-enforcement program, where we 

have put members of the law-enforcement community of 20, 30 

years’ experience, and marry them with a brigade commander or 

a Marine regimental commander, so that they can bring that experience to the battlefield, because each one of those individual IED 

events is certainly more like a criminal event. And, therefore, they 

can use that tremendous experience that they have, that sixth 

sense of knowing where to focus the investigation. 

So the number is a very small number, but I think we are adequately sourced with those professionals at the brigade and regimental level. And the program is one of our most successful programs. 

Mr. AKIN. Just to follow up on that, is a significant piece of information the various aerial assets that we have that would help provide some historic information as to who has been visiting a particular place at a particular time? 

General METZ. Yes, sir. 

We started with the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar Systems (JSTARs) and the movement target indicators and, often, 

could use the archived data from that. With other initiatives now, 

with full-motion video, and we can get even greater resolution, we 

are finding the value of the archived data that the Counter-IED 

Operations Integration Center can mine for us is helping us solve 

a lot of very tough problems. 

I believe that the data-mining and turning the information— 

using it for knowledge for the warfighter is one of our real successes. 

Mr. AKIN. Thank you. 

And thank you, Madam Chairman—I mean, Dr. Chairman. Excuse me. 

Dr. SNYDER. I didn’t get enough sleep last night. I just couldn’t 

come up with a quick comeback. I apologize. You gave me a 

straight line. I just couldn’t respond to it. 

I want to ask about the issue of oversight and the structure, and 

you and I talked about this the other day, General Metz. But the 

question is oversight by the Deputy Secretary of Defense sufficient 

as, perhaps, we define oversight? 

What do you all—let’s start with you, Mr. Berkson, and maybe 

hear what other people have to say. 

Mr. BERKSON. The oversight, again, the Deputy provides this is, 

literally, a monthly meeting, at least, to go through all of the efforts of General Metz and the organization. 

He looks for the priorities. He looks for the metrics of performance. He evaluates the programs and proposals that are being 

made. He looks at the budget and how both—it is being executed. 

He looks at the program’s effectiveness. So it is a, you know, an 

ongoing review at the—again, at the Deputy’s level, from a management standpoint. 

And, again, given—— 
16 

Dr. SNYDER. Some of us might be a little skeptical. I think he is 

a remarkable man, but there is a lot on his plate right now. And 

you all are a relatively new, somewhat fluid organization. 

And when we think about oversight, we think about finding the 

things that are not going right, that some people out there amongst 

your 3,600 employees may not want General Metz to know about. 

And so the question becomes: Is the monthly meeting sufficient 

to be doing that kind of evaluation—assessment—have the time to 

troubleshoot when something flares up? That is the question we 

may have on this side. 

Mr. BERKSON. Yes, I mean, the first line of defense on that is a 

three-star general, whose job is to focus 100 percent of his day on 

that effort, who has combat experience, and has led groups of people and managed money. 

And so I think our first—his first—check in the system is a competent and experienced leader overseeing the day-to-day. 

Dr. SNYDER. Right. 

Mr. BERKSON. At the next level up, again, there are checks and 

balances in the Defense Department, as you are well aware. And 

if there are issues or questions of malfeasance, we have inspector 

generals, we have audits, we have contract audit agencies, a number of mechanisms. 

From the fiscal and programmatic oversight, the services execute 

most, if not all, of the funds that JIEDDO programs. So, again, 

each of the service-acquisition agencies and executives has a specific statutory and regulatory requirement to certify as to the effectiveness of those programs. 

So, while, you know, the deputies’ once-a-month interaction may 

not seem a lot of oversight, given all of the other checks and balances we have in the system, it is, I think, a quite good one. And, 

again, relative to the priorities of the Department of Defense and 

the Nation, this is what is killing our troops, and that is why he 

needs to spend time on this, and why we think it is important—— 

Dr. SNYDER. That is a fair statement. 

When I hear you—by the way, Mr. Berkson, it is not that you 

should lay awake at night worrying about this. Whenever I hear 

the word ‘‘synergy’’—I think you used it—it makes—I get cold 

chills. I think whenever somebody uses the word ‘‘synergy,’’ they 

are covering up something—there is some kind of nebulous little 

world of people not quite sure what their authority is or what they 

are supposed to be doing, and so we are going to call it ‘‘synergy,’’ 

and we are going to kind of fuse our efforts together. So I get nervous. 

But, you know, I think, you know, the staff, here, spent quite a 

bit of time trying to sort this out. And it is hard for us to figure 

out exactly who does what. You know? I mean they have met with 

people. It is a hard thing for us to sort out, when you start talking 

about, ‘‘There will be military branches that spend the money,’’ 

and, well, are those—you know, what kind of relationships are 

those? And who follows the money? 

Now, this may be just the nature of government, but it seems 

like you all are a special breed, right now, for trying to do something that we all agree is very, very important. 
17 

Do you envision that, as we move along, we will move in the direction of more contracts, less contracts—to the work being—migrating more into the military side of government, the civilian side, 

the ratios staying about the same? Any of you had any thoughts 

about that? 

General METZ. Sir, I have thoughts about that, because one of 

my responsibilities is to lead and look deep in time, and broad in 

space. I think that much of the low-hanging fruit, especially in our 

line of operation that we call ‘‘Defeat the Device,’’ has been harvested. Nevertheless, we are still looking for those answers to very 

complex, technological challenges. 

So I think because we have found things that did not work, because we have turned away some proposals that we knew, from our 

experience, would not work. We have archived that. And so as good 

ideas come in, I am—there is an ever-thicker filter for them to pass 

through. 

And so I think there probably will be less contracts as we refine 

our ability to understand the different initiatives that may influence defeating the IED. 

Back to your earlier comment, I would add that the DOD direc- tive gives me the authority, under $25 million, to make decisions. 

And I think the experience that I have gained over my career allowed me to carefully and accurately make those decisions. 

Above that number, there is a senior resource-steering group 

that must all be coordinated with to approve, before it goes to the 

Deputy Secretary for a final approval. That group includes many 

of the principals in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. It includes the services. 

So, virtually everything we do gets a very transparent and thorough vetting before we make final decisions; having said that, we 

have a very fast process that makes that work for the warfighter. 

And my experience tells me we have got the right checks and balances in place to protect the resources that you have given us. 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Conaway—five minutes. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Well, I thank you. 

I apologize for just walking in, and will try not to plow ground 

that has already been plowed 11 dozen times. 

As we look at Afghanistan and the IED threat there, there are 

some public reports about troops there wanting vehicles that are 

more nimble than the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle 

(MRAP) because it just doesn’t work in the Afghani terrain. It 

works well, I guess, in urban settings, and those kinds of things. 

Does that redesign, or addressing that issue, fall under what you 

guys are doing? Or is that entirely somebody else’s line of work? 

General METZ. Sir, fundamentally, we have gotten away from, in 

my organization, the platforms, whether they are ground platforms 

or air platforms. But we do help coordinate. And, certainly, the soldiers that are fighting in the Afghan terrain probably do need a 

lighter, more maneuverable vehicle than the MRAP. 

Having said that, though, I think the troops, anywhere, are appreciative of the MRAP, because it has, clearly, saved soldiers—— 

Mr. CONAWAY. Yes. No. There was no question, I mean, no implication that the MRAP wasn’t doing its job. It is just that they can’t 

go as far in an MRAP as they might—as something more nimble— 
18 

could get that further with that protection—is what they want. No 

criticism meant on the MRAP. 

Addressing the financing system—I mean, how do we—does that 

fall under your purview, where we—not our financing, but—the 

way IEDs are being financed in both theaters—going after those 

players? 

General METZ. Yes, sir. We watch and, certainly, work at the levels at which my organization can work, and coordinate with the 

interagency. But financing networks that can put out the vast 

quantities that were put out in late 2006 and through the first half 

of 2007—those quantities required a lot of money. 

And so we, clearly, watch the finances, which is very closely related to the supply chain. And we are watching the supply chain 

very carefully. But much of that is in some of the interagency, that 

we could talk about at a closed hearing. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back. 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Johnson, for five minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

I would like to know what role—and I hope that this has not 

been gone over yet—what role should Congress play in improving 

our Nation’s ability to combat IEDs and other asymmetric threats? 

General METZ. Sir, I think that role is being executed right here, 

today—the oversight, so that we are transparent with the resources 

that the taxpayer has given us. We owe that transparency, certainly, to the degree in the open hearing that we can share that. 

There was some criticism, I think, constantly, about my organization, that we may not be transparent enough; that we often hide 

behind the classifications. I have looked at that very carefully, and 

I have made a personal decision that I will not give the enemy any 

advantage from my discussion of IEDs. 

Having said that, with the Congress, with industry, with academia, with whomever I am working, I want to be as transparent 

so that we get all the help we can get. And so your oversight is 

one way that I think is actually helping us to ensure that we are 

headed down the right paths. 

One of the very powerful tools that we are given through the 

Joint IED Defeat Fund is—are the resources that are not tagged 

to a particular function, like research and development, or procurement, or operations, so that we have the flexibility. 

And that flexibility is a very powerful tool when you are fighting 

an enemy that is not respectful of our budget cycle; an enemy that 

is innovative, very intelligent, ruthless. And in an information age 

where the sharing of that information is the speed of light—so the 

flexibility that—the funds that you have given us is a very key part 

of our success. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, sir. 

General KAMIYA. Sir, from a joint-training perspective, I can tell 

you that my organization and JFCOM, at large, takes increasing 

the return on investment—making every dollar count—very, very 

seriously. 

For us, as we look to the future. I have already described in my 

written statement the many ways in which USJFCOM and 

JIEDDO support each other in joint training. As we look to the future, though, there are opportunities to expand this partnership, 
19 

and, again, even given the current resource levels, to multiply, in 

my judgment, the return on investment. 

Let me give you a couple of examples. First of all, we all acknowledge that JIEDDO is developing a training COIC that will 

replicate and be a portal, if you will, to introduce the array of capabilities and lessons learned, that JIEDDO is learning as an organization—into the training environment. 

We are, currently, engaged in dialogue with JIEDDO and the 

Army to make sure that this training COIC does not become overly 

service-centric, that it addresses the C–IED, that it addresses the 

counter-IED training requirements of multiple services, and can, in 

addition to what support it. It can provide our JFCOM Mission Rehearsal Exercise Program, primarily designed for joint forces going 

to the CENTCOM Area of Responsibility (AOR)—it can, over time, 

help us with exercise planning and support. 

We provide the support to two exercises per COCOMs each year. 

So you can see how this can eventually lead to JIEDDO support 

to a multiplicity of combatant commanders, globally. 

The second area where we believe that we can, perhaps—would 

provide a greater return on investment—is for the way our organizations provide support to service-training programs. We acknowledge the way JIEDDO’s Joint Center of Excellence at Fort Irwin 

helps the services meet C–IED training requirements. 

Inside my organization, we also manage, on behalf of the Department of Defense, a program known as a Joint National Training 

Capability, that is designed to provide service-training programs 

with a joint context. And let me give you a couple of—an example 

of where, sir—Mr. Chairman—using that word ‘‘synergy,’’ if I 

may—exists. 

In fiscal year 2007, the JIEDDO’s Joint Center of Excellence and 

our Joint National Training Capability Program partnered together 

to field a closed cellphone network at the Joint Readiness Training 

Center in Fort Polk, Louisiana. 

That capability was primarily designed to defeat the network; to 

replicate, in a closed way, cellphone capabilities. However, when 

you look at the broader array of training requirements across the 

services, that same closed-loop cellphone network can also provide 

opportunities to enhance the Army’s opposing-forces capability at 

the Joint Readiness Training Center, as well as, potentially, meet 

some Joint Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) 

Capabilities. 

So, again, while the leading effort was to counter and to enhance 

C–IED capabilities, if you have someone like my organization, like 

the Joint National Training Capability Program—look—and a 

much broader array of a joint task, you can easily see how a C– 

IED investment for the same amount of money can impact on other 

service requirements. 

So those are two examples of the way, from a joint-training perspective, we can enhance the Department’s and Congress’s return 

on investment. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Dr. SNYDER. I want to ask about the Strategic Command 

(STRATCOM) study on the human-network-attack part of this. 

They identified a significant number of DOD initiatives, but rec-
20 

ommended there be some kind of a champion to coordinate. And I 

assume that you all have had some discussions with them. 

Do any of you have any thoughts about who should be that 

champion? 

Mr. BERKSON. Right now, that is the vice chairman, as the 

former STRATCOM commander—— 

Dr. SNYDER. I am sorry. Could you speak a little—— 

Mr. BERKSON. The vice chairman, as the former STRATCOM 

commander, surfaced that issue a number of, I think a couple of 

years ago. And we have been looking at it. I don’t think we have 

come to a determination of the management approach going forward, for that. 

Obviously, JIEDDO has a big role in that, and probably plays 

one of the largest roles in having expertise on countering human 

networks, from the standpoint of both expertise and the dollars 

being invested. But as far as I am aware, we haven’t made any 

change or coordination—agent or such for a human-network attack. 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Beasley, I wanted to ask about acquisition. 

Probably Duncan Hunter, who, at that time, was chairman of the 

committee, was very concerned about. During a time of war, we felt 

like it was probably both our faults things couldn’t be bought as 

quickly as they needed to be bought to respond to the needs of the 

folks—on the men and women on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

And do you think that the models that you all have come up 

with—that there is lessons to be learned throughout the acquisition 

process, on how to move things along quickly, and still get the 

quality and delivery times that you all want? 

Mr. BEASLEY. I believe there are many, many lessons we can 

learn, and—— 

Dr. SNYDER. Is your mic on there, Mr. Beasley? 

Mr. BEASLEY. Yes, it is. Can you hear me? 

Dr. SNYDER. Yes. Yes, thanks. 

Mr. BEASLEY. I do believe there are many lessons we can learn. 

In fact, we are taking on a project at this moment—Lean Six 

Sigma-related methodology—to look at the rapid-acquisition processes, which I will describe as urgent-needs processes. And I will 

explain that in just a moment—within the Department, to include 

the four services, special operations commands (SOCOMs), 

JIEDDO, and my own Joint Rapid Action Cell (JRAC) process, to 

determine if there are common lessons that we can apply across 

the Department to more effectively do the rapid acquisitions, and 

also export those recommendations to the defense acquisition system. 

Back to the urgent needs, we say ‘‘rapid acquisition.’’ Generally, 

we are in the urgent-needs process, in that other organizations—— 

Dr. SNYDER. I think that is a better name. Yes. 

Mr. BEASLEY [continuing]. Actually acquire the capability. 

Dr. SNYDER. You are going to come up with some kind of a formal, written document that—what you learned? Is that what your 

end point is—so you are studying? 

Mr. BEASLEY. We will make recommendations to the Under Secretary of Defense AT&L. The—— 
21 

Dr. SNYDER. You anticipate there may be some recommendations 

for Congress, as far as statutory changes that need to be made? Or 

do you have a sense of that yet? 

Mr. BEASLEY. We haven’t gotten that far yet. Clearly, that is on 

the table, if we can see some changes that could be made. Again, 

one of the things we found in the Department is the Department 

has many, many authorities that it can’t exercise, to do things rapidly. It is getting the will of the people who actually have to execute those authorities to take the initiative to execute them. 

It is often difficult, at the low-level program manager, individual 

contracting officer, to expedite actions when you need them. In fact, 

I carry around a letter from the other body—Senators Biden and 

Bond—that starts off with ‘‘unconscionable bureaucratic delay in 

the Department,’’ and ‘‘rapid acquisition.’’ 

I remember those words of that letter. And my objective is to cut 

through the bureaucracy and get the capability to the warfighter. 

I don’t see that bureaucracy is an inhibitor within JIEDDO. They 

are organized to address the needs of the combatant commands 

that they are supporting. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you. I hope you will—and I am sure you 

will—share with us anything you think we ought to know about 

it—that we might be helpful with in the process. 

General Metz, I was fumbling through my notes here. Was it 

3,600 personnel that you think you—was that the number you 

used—3,600 personnel? 

General METZ. Yes, sir. 

Dr. SNYDER. Now, of those 3,600 personnel, how many of them 

are contract personnel? 

General METZ. Sir, a large majority of them. I can—— 

Dr. SNYDER. Thirty-one hundred or so? 

General METZ. Sir, I can provide a matrix that outlines all the 

military, government, civilians, contractors that are on the joint 

manning document, and contractors that are hired to—for particular projects, all the way to those that are hired for a particular 

initiative. But we have got all that data. And we can certainly provide that. 

Dr. SNYDER. Is that probably about the proportion in the 2,600 

or 3,000 range of contractors, out of that total number? 

General METZ. Yes, sir. That is pretty close. 

Dr. SNYDER. Now, how do you all evaluate, or do you have a 

process for looking at those numbers of contractors and concluding, 

‘‘Well, wait a minute. This is probably an inherently governmental 

function that should more properly be handled through the normal 

hiring process.’’ It would probably be cheaper for the government 

through the normal hiring process. 

Do you make that determination? Did you make that determination in all 2,600 or so contractors? 

General METZ. Sir, I would like very much to move that ratio 

much more in favor of uniformed and government civilian. And 

that effort has been improving ever since—even before I took the 

job. I know General Meigs was concerned, and had started that effort. 
22 

But we still have, because of the rapid nature at which we are 

doing business, a need to be able to be flexible and be able to use 

the money to hire the people to do something very quickly for us. 

Again, I think it is an issue—a rightful issue—to make sure we 

have got the right government control. And I am watching that 

very carefully. And I think we are moving in the right direction, 

albeit maybe not as fast as we would like to. But I think we have 

got a clear definition of where we want to go, and improve that 

ratio. 

Dr. SNYDER. Let me see if anyone else has any questions. 

Mr. Akin. 

Mr. Conaway. 

Mr. Johnson. 

I wanted to ask, with regard to the COIC and JIEDDO—did— 

in your all’s minds, do those need to always be linked, or do you 

see it as they could go separately, or are there advantages or disadvantages that—talk to me about that, General Metz. 

General METZ. I have often described the COIC as a mega-initiative. You know, we began to develop the COIC based on the specified tasks in the DOD directive that we needed to maintain and 

joint-operation and intelligence picture. 

As we developed that, we learned that mining the Web pages of 

all those different commands is a very timely and energy-consuming effort. The COIC was able to develop abilities to go into 

databases inside the DOD and bring that information to analysts. 

Great young men and women, many of whom were contractors, 

but working for the government, developed algorithms that allowed 

us to mine that data and create knowledge for the warfighter. So 

in the near term, I would strongly recommend that the COIC remain part of my organization. 

As it develops its ability to fight human networks and becomes 

very mature, there could be a place downstream, where you may 

want to look at it as an entity that could—to work for someone 

else. 

But I would be very cautious. Because of that razor look at IEDs, 

we are learning so much about fighting these human networks, 

that I would keep it, you know, certainly for a period of time, under 

the DOD directive that forces us to look at the IED. 

Dr. SNYDER. You had mentioned earlier the flexibility. 

Maybe it was you, General Kamiya. 

Or maybe it was you, General Metz—that the flexibility in moving money around—I think it was in response to Mr. Johnson 

about that—that you would have flexibility from Congress, moving 

money around. 

Have you had situations where you, in moving initiatives into 

one of the branches of the military—that because they have different ways of budgeting, and more—less flexible funding methodologies—that it has caused some problems for getting the same 

job done? Or have you had occasion where you just decided not to 

make the move because of the lack of flexibility? Has that been a 

problem? 

General METZ. Sir, I think that—and I will let Mr. Berkson add 

to my comments. This is a subject that is constantly on my mind, 

and constantly being worked, because we are working within—be-
23 

cause of the three-year money, we are able to work with great flexibility. As our enemy is working inside our budget cycle, so are we. 

When we mature an initiative, there will always be some friction 

with the services as that good initiative needs to be picked up by 

the services. I don’t envision the Joint IED Defeat Organization 

being a sustainer of a particular, especially material, initiative, and 

many of the non-material initiatives for very long. 

But because of the budget cycle, we need to make decisions as 

we mature that initiative to work with the services on when they 

are capable of picking it up. And in many cases, either supplemental dollars for us to carry it, to when they can pick it up in 

their program, or they pick it up on supplemental dollars to eventually drive it into their program. But there is going to be a natural friction because the enemy is making decisions inside our 

budget cycle. 

And that friction, I think, is okay because it forces us to really 

look at the initiative very hard and very critical, should the service 

pick it up either as a program of record or as a temporary effort. 

But it is something that we are watching very carefully. And to 

date, in my experience—in my nine months—the vice chiefs of the 

services and the staffs have worked very closely together, and in 

a very cooperative way, to track these main initiatives. 

Mr. BERKSON. Although it is, you know, at the end of the Administration—and the next Administration will do what they do with 

regard to 2010—but if you just take the timeframe, my main job 

is looking at 2010 through 2015 right now. 

Dr. SNYDER. I am sorry. It is looking—— 

Mr. BERKSON. My main job is looking at the years 2010 through 

2015. 

Dr. SNYDER. Okay. 

Mr. BERKSON. So all of the issues that JIEDDO has to deal with 

that need to be sustained in the longer term are issues we look at, 

and are looking at, kind of in the year—two years out. 

The wonderful thing about the capability that JIEDDO has is 

they are going to be dealing with things that happen in the next 

two years. A month from now, we won’t be able to predict what 

they are. And that is the money that is very difficult, in our process, to actually—those are the resources that are very difficult to 

bring to bear in a timely fashion. It can be done through 

supplementals, but even then, the timing is more difficult. 

So as you think about a transition of a program from JIEDDO 

into the service, as you think about the two-year-and-out window, 

that is the department and the kind of the natural rhythm of funding that we think about as we do our annual budget submission. 

And, again, the work that General Metz does really kind of encompasses the timeframe from this moment to the point in which 

the President signs the appropriations bill. That is the time that 

is the most, you know, critical for us for this activity, but also the 

most difficult to do in the kind of normal process. 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Akin, do you have anything further? 

Mr. AKIN. Nothing further. 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Conaway, anything further? 
24 

I wanted to give any of you that had any comment you wanted 

to make about anything we talked about today your last shot at the 

microphone today. 

General Kamiya, anything further? 

General KAMIYA. No, sir. 

Dr. SNYDER. I appreciate you being here. 

Mr. Beasley. 

Mr. BEASLEY. Yes. Thank you very much. 

Just—— 

Dr. SNYDER. You have to pull that microphone in, though. 

Mr. BEASLEY. Okay. 

For Mr. Conaway—you asked about the light MRAP. I doublechecked my notes here. CENTCOM has submitted their joint urgent operational need. That joint urgent operational need is at the 

Joint Staff J–8 today for their validation. In fact, the Department 

is leaning forward in assigning that to the MRAP Task Force. 

I think, in the press, you could even read some discussions about 

that light vehicle and some of its characteristics to be fielded to Afghanistan. So I see relatively quick turnaround in getting that capability to Afghanistan. 

Regarding oversight of JIEDDO, the director of JRAC has had 

the opportunity to participate in the Deputy Secretary’s meetings 

over the last several years. And the meeting occurs with both the 

Deputy Secretary and the vice chairman. 

And their counsel is well-received. The direction vectors they give 

to JIEDDO help inform both the senior leadership and the director 

of JIEDDO in critical warfighting needs and priorities—again, informed by the Deputy Secretary and the vice chairman. 

As was stated, there is a senior resource steering group, a threefour-star-level board. They all have the opportunity to weigh in on 

the oversight of JIEDDO at any time. 

JIEDDO has a one-to-two-star board—representative from the 

services—broad range across the OSD offices—policy, intelligence, 

JRAC. AT&L has another office sitting on there—Joint Staff—several Joint Staff offices. We all have the opportunity to provide our 

guidance and counsel. 

Back to the acquisition oversight. Again, the paradigm is my organization, JIEDDO. We don’t buy anything. Someone else buys it. 

The oversight of the acquisitions falls under the acquisition process 

established by the organization that is doing that. 

What we do is help push them to get them to make their decisions, accomplish the acquisitions, the procurements, using the authorities they inherently have—get those waivers and deviations 

they may need—to get the capability to the warfighter as quickly 

as possible. 

Financial oversight—I think my experience with the JIEDDO— 

that is a continuing, improving endeavor of JIEDDO. Again, when 

they had 12 people as a task force, and they suddenly grew to a 

larger organization, the financial oversight may not have been perfect. 

My deputy director of the JRAC is in the comptroller. I have had 

discussions with him about the financial oversight. They are looking at ways to even improve it beyond what it is now. So my expectation is the financial oversight—the ability to actually get the 
25 

money obligated, and understand where it is going to have additional improvements. 

Regarding funding of JIEDDO. I want to emphasize that the— 

we will call it ‘‘colorless money’’—enables JIEDDO to rapidly respond to the needs of the warfighter. 

The JRAC has the same type of fund. We use the Iraq Freedom 

Fund. We have requested some additional funds in a rapid-acquisition fund—colorless money. The JRAC has had very limited appropriations in fiscal year 2008. And, as a result, I have had to turn 

to the services and go through their processes to get funding. 

What I want to tell you is that process takes longer. If you have 

the funding up front, like JIEDDO has the funding, you can make 

the decisions. You can resource the capability. And you can get it 

to the warfighter. Over $2 billion in Joint Urgent Operational Needs (JUONs) have been funded, that are not counter-IED, in fiscal year 2008. Over $1 

billion will be funded, or is expected to be funded, in fiscal year 

2009 that are not counter-IED. Had that funding been available 

and not part of the second supplemental reprogramming actions 

that have occurred over the last two months, then some of these 

actions could have been accomplished months before. 

So what I am saying is, having the colorless money saves months 

on getting the capability to the warfighter. And I can document 

that for the non-counter-IED JUONs. 

Thank you very much. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Beasley. 

I notice you have got some pieces of paper there. I didn’t see an 

organizational chart there, which I think I would say, ‘‘Thank God 

for that; that I don’t have to look at that.’’ I think it would be a 

very complicated organizational chart, trying to follow that around. 

But I appreciate your outlining those concepts. I appreciate your 

service. 

Mr. Matthews, anything further you want to say? 

Mr. MATTHEWS. Sir, nothing further than to say it is an important topic. I appreciate you spending the time to look into it. I hope 

you have got all the information you need to make the right decisions. And the message is the same on what is important and flexible and allows them the agility to make a difference in a timely 

fashion. Thank you. 

Dr. SNYDER. Yes. Thank you. 

General Metz, or Mr. Berkson, have—— 

Mr. BERKSON. I just want to thank you again, on behalf of the 

Secretary and the Deputy. This is something we want to work with 

the Congress to find out how we can all be comfortable getting to 

the best solution to save our soldiers’ lives. 

Dr. SNYDER. Well, we appreciate you all being here today, and 

appreciate your service. And we may have some questions in follow 

up for the record. Or you all get back with your folks and they say, 

‘‘Wait a minute, we should have informed about such and such.’’ 

Feel free to send that over to us, and we will include that as part 

of the record and distribute it to the membership also. 

Thank you all. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:44 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 

(31) 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 

(61) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. SNYDER 

Dr. SNYDER. In specific terms, please describe the current level of interagency (IA) 

support to DOD’s C-IED effort. What additional IA support would you like to see? 

How is our homeland security benefitting from the large investment and significant 

accomplishments of DOD’s C-IED effort? Is there a formal process for exchange of 

information between JIEDDO and the Department of Homeland Security and other 

federal departments and agencies? 

Mr. BERKSON. JIEDDO benefits extensively from interagency support. External 

agencies have provided JIEDDO with more than 100 personnel who serve as liaisons with their organizations, as outlined in JIEDDO’s May 2008 quarterly report 

to the Congress. These personnel are DoD points of contact and catalysts for initiatives across the full range of efforts necessary to defeat the IED threat at home and 

abroad. JIEDDO works with other agencies to counter transnational threats 

through information sharing and collaboration as well as technology transfer programs. Local agencies and bomb squads have access to, and can provide information 

to support, a database of improvised explosive devices used around the world. This 

database is the repository for all of the data on bomb-making methods collected 

from available sources, including the military and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms, and Explosives. Researchers cull data from manuals and Web materials 

generated by insurgents. Only cleared users can access the site, chief among whom 

are the country’s roughly 2,900 bomb technicians on 472 accredited squads. 

Through collaboration and an expansive set of forums, information-sharing networks, and outreach efforts, JIEDDO coordinates, deconflicts, and collaborates on 

finding solutions to IED threats, integrating its efforts with the substantial ongoing 

work of the armed services, the intelligence community, interagency organizations, 

and a broad range of public and private partners. These coordinated efforts allow 

JIEDDO to provide the leaders of government agencies with a single point of contact 

for counter-IED activities, while helping to establish a common operational picture 

of IEDs and their employment around the world. 

Dr. SNYDER. In specific terms, please describe the current level of interagency (IA) 

support to DOD’s C-IED effort. What additional IA support would you like to see? 

How is our homeland security benefitting from the large investment and significant 

accomplishments of DOD’s C-IED effort? Is there a formal process for exchange of 

information between JIEDDO and the Department of Homeland Security and other 

federal departments and agencies? 

General METZ. JIEDDO benefits extensively from interagency support. Interagency collaboration is already fairly robust within JIEDDO and there are no obvious shortfalls in our ability to leverage all the assets of the U.S. government. 

JIEDDO has daily contact with multiple interagency personnel including: resident 

LNOs from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); Defense Intelligence Agency 

(DIA); National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC); National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA); National Security Agency (NSA); Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 

and Firearms (ATF); and Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This support encompasses more than 80 liaison personnel from external agencies working towards 

JIEEDDO’s Counter-LED (C-IED) mission. These personnel serve as the DoD point 

of coordination and catalyst for initiatives across a full range of efforts necessary 

to defeat the IED threat at home and abroad; they are embedded throughout the 

JIEDDO headquarters and our C-IED Operations Integration Center (COIC). 

JIEDDO works with other agencies against transnational threats by information 

sharing and collaboration, as well as, technology transfer programs. Government 

agencies and local bomb squads provide information to support a database of IEDs 

used around the world. This database stores all the data on bomb-making methods 

collected from available sources, including the military and the ATF. Researchers 

also cull data from captured manuals and internet available materials created by 

insurgents. Only cleared users can access the site, and among the visitors are the 

country’s roughly 2,900 bomb technicians on 472 accredited squads. 

Additionally, the JIEDDO Chief Scientist and Science Advisor is a member of the 

National Science and Technology Council Subcommittee on Domestic Improvised Explosive Devices. This group meets monthly to discuss issues associated with the pro-
62 

tection of the Homeland from the threat of IEDs. Further, through Science and 

Technology, JIEDDO is working with DHS to share information that will provide 

benefit to both the warfighter abroad, as well as, to the protection of United States 

citizens at home. 

JIEDDO established its formal process for information sharing through collaboration and an expansive set of forums, information sharing networks, and outreach 

efforts. JIEDDO coordinates, de-conflicts, and collaborates on finding solutions to 

IED threats; integrating its efforts with the substantial ongoing work of the Armed 

Services, the intelligence community, interagency organizations, and a broad series 

of public and private partners. This allows JIEDDO to provide senior leaders of government agencies with a single point of contact for C-IED efforts, while helping to 

establish a common operational picture of IEDs and their employment around the 

world. JIEDDO designed its processes and procedures to ensure close coordination 

with all Interagency and International partners within the C-IED fight. 

JIEDDO enjoys excellent partnerships with DHS and USNORTHCOM in our 

focus on protecting the Homeland. JIEDDO supports the homeland security C-IED 

fight through a full-time NORTHCOM desk officer who provides daily C-IED intelligence liaison with NORTHCOM and other interagency organizations regarding potential IED threats to the homeland. The NORTHCOM desk officer also continuously monitors world-wide IED trends, tactics, techniques, and procedures that terrorist or criminal groups may implement with the intent or capability of attacking 

the homeland. JIEDDO also maintains a full-time Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosives (CBRNE) Desk officer who maintains intelligence 

liaison with various interagency representatives regarding any potential CBRNE 

nexus to the homeland IED threat. Both of these analysts also have daily access 

to the ATF LNO assigned to JIEDDO, thereby providing information sharing across 

U.S. governmental agencies. Within JIEDDO, the NORTHCOM desk officer can exchange information with the DHS through NORTHCOM contacts or one of several 

DHS points of contact directly, depending on the information required. JIEDDO’s 

lead DHS LNO is developing a Concept of Operations (ConOp) for implementation 

of JIEDDO (COIC) tools and methodologies against the DHS problem set. JIEDDO 

receives ample support and is able to conduct liaison with all required federal agencies through resident LNOs, USNORTHCOM, the National Counterterrorism Center 

(NCTC), DIA’s Joint Interagency Task Force-Counterterrorism (JITF-CT), other 

COCOMs, or direct points of contacts in support of the homeland defense C-IED 

mission. 

JIEDDO welcomes continued support from our IA partners, their liaison personnel, and other identified personnel involved in the C-IED mission. 

Dr. SNYDER. In specific terms, please describe the current level of interagency (IA) 

support to DOD’s C-IED effort. What additional IA support would you like to see? 

How is our homeland security benefiting from the large investment and significant 

accomplishments of DOD’s C-IED effort? Is there a formal process for exchange of 

information between JIEDDO and the Department of Homeland Security and other 

federal departments and agencies? 

Mr. MATTHEWS. JIEDDO’s connection with the interagency (IA) is extensive. The 

IA has numerous liaisons to JIEDDO both here in the United States and forward. 

The Terrorist Explosives Device Analytical Center (TEDAC) located with the FBI 

at Quantico, VA is an IA location where the sharing of IED related information is 

conducted. The TEDAC coordinates and manages the united effort of Law Enforcement, intelligence and military assets to technically and forensically exploit IEDs 

across the interagency. 

Dr. SNYDER. In specific terms, please describe the current level of interagency (IA) 

support to DoD’s C-IED effort. What additional IA support would you like to see? 

How is our homeland security benefiting from the large investment and significant 

accomplishments of DoD’s C-IED effort? Is there a formal process for exchange of 

information between JIEDDO and the Department of Homeland Security and other 

federal departments and agencies? 

Mr. BEASLEY. As Director (Acting) of the Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell (JRAC), I 

do not have oversight of the level of interagency support to DoD’s Counter-Improvised Explosive Device (C-IED) mission or JIEDDO’s exchange of information with 

the Department of Homeland Security and other federal departments and agencies. 

The JRAC supports the JIEDDO by assessing and forwarding C-IED Joint Urgent 

Operational Needs (JUONs), received from Combatant Commanders, to the JIEDDO 

and through the JRAC’s Director’s membership on various JIEDDO Boards that 

evaluate and recommend approval of C-IED initiatives. 

Dr. SNYDER. In specific terms, please describe the current level of interagency (IA) 

support to DOD’s C-IED effort. What additional IA support would you like to see? 

How is our homeland security benefitting from the large investment and significant 
63 

accomplishments of DOD’s C-IED effort? Is there a formal process for exchange of 

information between JIEDDO and the Department of Homeland Security and other 

federal departments and agencies? 

General KAMIYA. One means of interagency support is participation in the mission 

rehearsal exercises that USJFCOM conducts for joint force headquarters designated 

for employment in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Horn of Africa. The exercises provide an 

environment for training and collaboration between deploying headquarters, interagency partners, and multinational participants. Interagency participants relevant 

to C-IED efforts include Department of Treasury and Justice as well as DOD intelligence agencies such as NSA. 

Another avenue of interagency support is information exchange with USJFCOM’s 

Knowledge and Information Fusion Exchange (KnIFE). KnIFE has access to the Department of Homeland Security TRIPwire website that catalogues IED technical information to assist domestic bomb squads and the Law Enforcement Online (LEO) 

secure computer network that gives law enforcement officers around the country access to sensitive but unclassified information and intelligence reports. Also, KnIFE 

coordinates with the Secret Service to receive current Threat Finance information 

that can be shared throughout DOD and the interagency community on KnIFE’s 

Websites. 

As KnIFE moves forward into other knowledge areas there will likely be increasing areas of interaction and support required with the various federal departments 

and agencies. USJFCOM is currently analyzing requirements to determine 

prioritization of future KnIFE knowledge areas. One example of this effort would 

be support for a site on the KnIFE portal for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) 

information. In the case of a WMD site, KnIFE would need to access data from a 

variety of different interagency organizations to include DOE, FEMA, DHS, ATF, 

FBI, and CDC. 

USJFCOM is unable to respond with specific examples of how homeland security 

is improved as a result of DOD investment in the C-IED effort. It could be stated, 

however, that if the best means to secure the homeland is by ‘‘defending in depth’’ 

then the work that JIEDDO is doing to defeat the network that supports the use 

of IED’s in the CENTCOM AOR is helping to secure the homeland. 

USJFCOM is not aware of formal processes used to exchange information between 

JIEDDO and DHS. 

Dr. SNYDER. At their April 2008 Senior Warfighting Forum, the COCOMs were 

complimentary about JIEDDO’s contributions, but some expressed significant concerns about the organization outliving its original purpose and expanding into areas 

that are redundant with existing DOD organizations. What, if anything, is being 

done to address these concerns? How are the COCOMs—JIEDDO’s main customers—involved in decisions related to JIEDDO’s future? 

Mr. BERKSON. JIEDDO initiatives benefit from funding plans that are transparent, analytically based, executable, and linked to the sustainment plans for the 

initiatives. To that end, the Deputy Secretary of Defense and his senior advisors, 

including the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, review all JIEDDO expenditures exceeding $25 million. The Deputy Secretary and his advisors also review the 

associated initiatives to ensure that they are not redundant with existing capabilities. 

DoD fully recognizes the need for active COCOM participation in discussions related to JIEDDO’s future. Representatives from the COCOMs have participated in 

JIEDDO ‘‘cross brief ’’ conferences and program review issue teams, and key elements of JIEDDO are staffed with liaison officers who operate from forward locations in the COCOMs’ areas of responsibility. The COCOMs have also provided liaison officers to JIEDDO to enhance communications and collaboration. The Joint 

Staff also maintains primary, direct communications with COCOMs on all issues 

concerning JIEDDO. The Joint Staff leverages the operational expertise of the 

COCOMs and the Senior Warfighter Forums to identify issues, priorities, and capability and resource mismatches. 

JIEDDO’s original purposes—to design, develop, and field counter-IED capabilities well inside normal budgetary timelines—remain highly relevant to our combatant commanders. The COCOMs confirm that JIEDDO has provided a synergy 

unique within DoD, and that it has enabled joint and coalition forces to respond effectively to the disruptive threat posed by IEDs and the networks behind them. The 

Secretary continues to consult with the COCOMs, along with his other military and 

civilian advisors, to ensure that JIEDDO continues to meet this unique need. 

Dr. SNYDER. At their April 2008 Senior Warfighting Forum, the COCOMs were 

complimentary about JIEDDO’s contributions, but some expressed significant concerns about the organization outliving its original purpose and expanding into areas 

that are redundant with existing DOD organizations. What, if anything, is being 
64 

done to address these concerns? How are the COCOMs—JIEDDO’s main customers—involved in decisions related to JIEDDO’s future? 

General METZ. JIEDDO works deliberately to avoid duplication of Counter-IED 

(C-IED) efforts. One area which we are especially careful with is the Title X responsibility Services have to train and equip their forces for employment by Combatant 

Commanders (COCOMS). Using our chartered authority to Lead, Advocate, and Coordinate all Department of Defense (DoD) C-IED actions in support of the 

COCOMS, JIEDDO works closely with the Services to overlay vigorous, accurate, 

up to the minute training experiences on to the existing Service pre-deployment programs. This effort supplements, but does not supersede, Service training efforts. 

JIEDDO leverages the acquisition infrastructure of Services to harness their 

warfighting expertise and their acumen in defense procurement. In the effort to 

lead, focus, and coordinate DoD C-IED efforts, JIEDDO actively works with Services 

to avoid duplication of their programs that contribute to defeating IEDs. 

Both the Senior Warfighting Forum (SWarF) and the Deputy’s Advisory Working 

Group (DAWG) value the synergy of JIEDDO’s Train the Force, Defeat the Device, 

and Attack the Network lines of operation. JIEDDO’s ability to fuse information 

from numerous sources is leveraged by all COCOMS. JIEDDO’s main effort is delivering actionable and operational information to identify and attack the cells and 

networks that are conducting IED attacks against coalition forces, and civilians, in 

Iraq and Afghanistan. COCOMs, through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

(CJCS), actively participate in DoD decisions regarding the future of JIEDDO via 

a number of working forums (SWarF, DAWG, etc.) where they have a voice. 

JIEDDO, as a jointly manned activity of the Department of Defense, operates 

under the authority, direction, and control of the Deputy Secretary of Defense. As 

JIEDDO’s Director, I serve as the principal advisor to both the Deputy Secretary 

of Defense and to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on IED defeat matters. 

The COCOMs, JIEDDO’s principal customers, collaborate with JIEDDO through the 

CJCS and vice versa. JIEDDO provides rapid responses to war fighter C-IED needs 

that existing DoD organizations are unable to provide. Further, through continuous 

collaboration and evolvement of the COCOMs in the development and implementation of their C-IED plans, JIEDDO continues to take proactive measures to provide 

a supportive and collaborative role in each unique COCOM mission area. 

Dr. SNYDER. At their April 2008 Senior Warfighting Forum, the COCOMs were 

complimentary about JIEDDO’s contributions, but some expressed significant concerns about the organization outliving its original purpose and expanding into areas 

that are redundant with existing DOD organizations. What, if anything, is being 

done to address these concerns? How are the COCOMs—JIEDDO’s main customers—involved in decisions related to JIEDDO’s future? 

Mr. MATTHEWS. The IED problem still remains a clear and present threat to our 

forces for the foreseeable future. The JIEDDO maturation process has led to a number of initiatives to defeat what has evolved into a sophisticated network. The 

JIEDDO program is reviewed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other Department senior leaders for expenditure exceeding $25 million. The JIEDDO review process scrutinizes initiatives from 

the services and the COCOMs. JIEDDO works deliberately to avoid redundancy 

with existing DOD organizations. The Deputy’s Advisory Working Group reviewed 

the JIEDDO organization activities and functions and decided in May 2008 to keep 

JIEDDO as an enduring organization. 

Dr. SNYDER. At their April 2008 Senior Warfighting Forum, the COCOMs were 

complimentary about JIEDDO’s contributions, but some expressed significant concerns about the organization outliving its original purpose and expanding into areas 

that are redundant with existing DoD organizations. What, if anything, is being 

done to address these concerns? How are the COCOMs—JIEDDO’s main customers—involved in decisions related to JIEDDO’s future? 

Mr. BEASLEY. As Director (Acting) of the Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell (JRAC), I 

do not have cognizance of the COCOM’s concerns regarding JIEDDO or its actions 

to address these concerns. The JRAC supports the JIEDDO by assessing and forwarding Counter-Improvised Explosive Device (C-IED). Joint Urgent Operational 

Needs (JUONs), received from Combatant Commanders, to the JIEDDO and 

through the JRAC Director’s membership on various JIEDDO Boards that evaluate 

and recommend approval of C-IED initiatives. 

Dr. SNYDER. At their April 2008 Senior Warfighting Forum, the COCOMs were 

complimentary about JIEDDO’s contributions, but some expressed significant concerns about the organization outliving its original purpose and expanding into areas 

that are redundant with existing DOD organizations. What, if anything, is being 

done to address these concerns? How are the COCOMs—JIEDDO’s main customers—involved in decisions related to JIEDDO’s future? 
65 

General KAMIYA. USJFCOM does not have a current mandate to coordinate discussions with combatant commands about JIEDDO’s future. The Senior Warfighter 

Forum (SWarF) referenced in the question focused on identifying required C-IED capabilities and a prioritized descriptive set of capability attributes to inform the Department on development of future capabilities. The SWarF focused on the ‘‘demand 

side’’ of the warfighter challenge while a concurrent Program Decision Memorandum 

(PDM) directed that PA&E conduct a study focused on the ‘‘supply side’’ of the challenge; that is, how best to institutionalize JIEDDO’s functions in the Department 

with respect to operations, intelligence, training, and acquisition. During the 

SWarF, combatant commands presented perspectives on the JIEDDO organization 

to include opining on functions that JIEDDO performed that could be considered redundant with in-theater capabilities or better handled by another organization within DOD. 

These combatant command comments, in addition to prioritized C-IED capabilities and attributes, were reported to VCJCS, briefed to the JROC, and ultimately 

were used to inform the 18 April 2008 PA&E study findings and recommendations. 

The PA&E study findings and recommendations were presented to the Deputy Secretary of Defense Advisory Working Group (DAWG) in May of 2008. The PA&E recommendations presented to the DAWG considered and incorporated combatant command input from the SWarF and offered several courses of action that spanned from 

maintaining the JIEDDO status quo, to three separate options for distributing discrete JIEDDO functions across different DOD organizations. While the Department’s decision on these various options is pending, the SWarF provided a viable 

venue for the combatant commands to voice their needs and concerns to inform the 

Department’s decision on a way ahead for institutionalizing JIEDDO. 

USJFCOM is unable to provide a specific response since USJFCOM does not work 

with JIEDDO on this issue. It is feasible that future SWarF’s could be convened to 

address this issue but this is not planned at this time. 

Dr. SNYDER. When available, please provide the committee the Program Decision 

Memorandum discussing the institutionalization of JIEDDO. 

Mr. BERKSON. Program Decision Memoranda are among the internal working documents used in developing the President’s budget request. These documents are not 

released outside of the Department. Upon completion of internal program and budget reviews, the Department provides detailed budget justification documents to accompany the President’s budget request. These documents express the administration’s position on funding levels requested in the base budget and across the Future 

Years Defense Program (FYDP). 

Dr. SNYDER. You testified that the IED will never be removed from the battlefield, 

but that the endpoint for JIEDDO would be the defeat of the IED as a weapon of 

strategic influence, as declared in your mission statement from JIEDDO’s DOD Directive. In specific terms, please explain how you will know when this endpoint is 

achieved? Will JIEDDO’s effort continue at the current level until that endpoint is 

reached or will it be scaled proportionately to the level of the IED’s impact? 

General METZ. I believe that we will never be able to completely eradicate the 

IED as a weapon used by our enemy, but must focus on neutralizing its strategic 

effects. Thus, while the weapon may manifest itself in many ways at the tactical 

level, we must understand that the strategic intent of those who employ it is to 

weaken the resolve of the American public, their decision makers, and our allies 

throughout the world. Long after Coalition Forces have drawn down in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States will, in my estimation, need to maintain an enduring 

and latent capacity to react to the threat of IEDs. If my appreciation of the strategic 

threat is accurate, then American warfighters can expect to face this tactical threat 

whenever they enter a non-permissive or semi-permissive environment. This has 

profound policy implications for our future, and must be factored into any future 

considerations concerning U.S. military engagement. 

At JIEDDO, the matter of defeating IEDs is not based on counting, but rather 

as one of tempo and effect that will impact the United States and our allies, not 

just in Iraq and Afghanistan but throughout the world. Given the significant superiority of our conventional forces against likely conventional threats, it is evident to 

JIEDDO that had we not galvanized against this threat in the CENTCOM region, 

we would certainly have had to combat it somewhere else. As the need for JIEDDO 

is continuously expressed by the Combatant Commands (COCOMs), principally by 

CENTCOM, the IED threat continues to evolve. JIEDDO must remain easily adaptable to counter this fluctuation and provide C-IED solutions in response to Joint Urgent Operational Needs (JUONs). 

Currently, JIEDDO’s Operations Division has begun discussions with United 

States Forces Korea in the Pacific Command’s area of responsibility concerning the 

potential of IED threats to U.S. and Coalition Forces in the Pacific Rim and North-
66 

east Asia. Similarly, we have responded to appeals from United States Southern 

Command seeking assistance in countering a significant IED threat to U.S. partners, stemming from narco-terrorists within that region. As we continue to adapt 

to new threats and tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan, JIEDDO must also support our 

COCOM partners in other areas of responsibility where the IED threat is increasing. 

There is ebb and flow that follows this weapon, our enemy, and the strategic influence it holds over our warfighters. JIEDDO stands ready and capable of responding to the adaptable IED threat. 

Dr. SNYDER. You testified that a metric for JIEDDO’s success is the fact that it 

takes more IEDs to cause a Coalition Force casualty than it did before JIEDDO was 

established. However, this statistic does not take into account the significant increase in IEDs emplaced nor does it capture the total number of Coalition Forces’, 

Iraqi and Afghan Security Forces’, and civilian casualties caused by IEDs. Additionally, it can be argued that the decrease in U.S. troop casualties per IED can be attributed to efforts outside of JIEDDO’s main contributions, such as increased armor 

protection on vehicles and the fielding of the MRAP vehicles. JIEDDO’s annual report highlights other metrics used to gauge the intensity level of the IED fight and 

the impact of C-IED initiatives, but it does not provide statistical data to support 

these metrics. Can you please discuss JIEDDO’s metrics for success in defeating the 

IED as a weapon of strategic influence and provide statistical data to support these 

metrics? 

General METZ. Mr. Chairman, you are correct in the fact that the enemy must 

emplace more IEDs to cause a casualty is a benefit of not only JIEDDO’s investments but also improvements in armor, the fielding of the MRAP vehicles and perhaps most importantly, the actions of the great American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen 

and Marines on the ground. 

Some of the other JIEDDO metrics for success in defeating the IED as a weapon 

of strategic influence can be sub-divided as follows; metrics on overall IED activity, 

metrics on IED activity normalized by Coalition Force (CF) levels, metrics on enemy 

effectiveness in inflicting casualties on CF, and metrics that indicate changes in 

enemy tactics, techniques, and procedures as a result of JIEDDO initiatives. Each 

of these groups is used to evaluate JIEDDO’s progress in defeating the IED and inform leadership when adjustments in strategy are in order. 

Metrics on overall IED activity measures the total number of IED incidents and 

divides those incidents into their component parts. Currently, IED incidents are 

parsed as follows: IEDs Found and Cleared, Ineffective IED Attacks, Effective IED 

Attacks, and IED Attacks with Damage to Coalition Force Vehicles (a subset of ineffective attacks. In these cases, the enemy initiated an attack with no CF killed or 

wounded; however, the vehicle was damaged during the attack.). 

Metrics on IED activity normalized by Coalition Forces takes into account the 

overall CF presence in theater. These metrics are an indication of the risk that CF 

are exposed to in each theater of operation. These metrics were first established in 

September 2008 as a way to compare the risk to CF in Afghanistan to Iraq. The 

following metrics have been used and are being refined: Monthly KIA/WIA per 1000 

CF Troops, Monthly IED Incidents per 1000 CF Troops, and Cumulative Risk of 

IED Exposure/Casualty/KIA over a given time period. 

Metrics on enemy effectiveness are a proxy for the level of effort the enemy must 

expend to cause a CF casualty. These metrics include IED casualty rates that are 

sub-divided between CF WIA/attack and CF KIA/attack, and incidents per CF casualty. 

Additionally, JIEDDO also tracks changes in enemy tactics, techniques, and procedures. These metrics include type of IED, type of triggering mechanism, and general location of the incident. Mapping these trends against the introduction of 

JIEDDO incidents provide insight into potential changes in strategy/tactics and the 

effectiveness of fielded JIEDDO initiatives. 

Statistical data to support these metrics is classified and we would be happy to 

provide that in a classified forum. However, the data shows that overall IED activity 

in Operation Iraqi Freedom OIF has decreased. Specifically, IED incidents in September 2008 were approximately 30% of their September 2007 and 25% of their September 2006 levels. Similarly, effective attacks against CF in September 2008 are 

20% of their September 2007 totals, and 10% of their September 2006 totals. 

Dr. SNYDER. General Metz testified that in the future the Counter IED Operations 

Integration Center (COIC) could be moved to another organization in DOD to take 

full advantage of its human network attack capabilities. Where in DOD do you 

think the COIC could go? Do you think the COIC is a unique capability and one 

that should endure for future fights against hostile human networks regardless of 

the type of threat they choose to use against us? How does the COIC and its capa-
67 

bilities compare with all of DOD’s other human network attack efforts? Are any of 

the COIC’s capabilities redundant? 

Mr. MATTHEWS. The COIC’s capabilities are similar to other organizations in that 

they endeavor to fuse intelligence from all sources not just HUMINT. The uniqueness of the COIC, however, is that they are focused on the IED networks. If the 

COIC was to be moved to another organization, it would be important for it to remain focused on the IED problem. A diffusion/degradation of that focus would have 

negative effects for our troops in contact. The insights that the COIC has gained 

into network operations no doubt has a certain degree of application to other network operations. 

Dr. SNYDER. Is there any additional information you would like to add for the 

record? 

Mr. BERKSON. Not at this time. I would like to thank you for your support of the 

Department’s counter-IED efforts. 

Dr. SNYDER. Is there any additional information you would like to add for the 

record? 

General METZ. As I stated in my written testimony, I would like to reiterate for 

the record that in JIEDDO’s mission area of rapid acquisition, JIEDDO responds 

to urgent warfighter needs through the development and delivery of capabilities, 

normally within a period of four-24 months. As DoD’s leader for C-IED investments, 

JIEDDO rapidly integrates the efforts of academia, industry, interagency, and joint 

and allied forces to focus and coordinate key investments across the tactical, operational, and strategic battlespace. JIEDDO uses aggressive finding networks to 

identify solutions to persistently difficult, high-priority, technical, and operational 

capability gaps. 

While JIEDDO moves towards a stable future within the Department, it is critical 

that rapid acquisition remains a priority. JIEDDO’s rapid acquisition capability is 

enabled by Congress’s support of multi-year, flexible funding. The flexibility of this 

funding allows JIEDDO to remain agile in our C-IED fight. 

Dr. SNYDER. Is there any additional information you would like to add for the 

record? 

Mr. MATTHEWS. No, but thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

Dr. SNYDER. Is there any additional information you would like to add for the 

record? 

Mr. BEASLEY. No, thank you, I have nothing further to add for the record. 

Dr. SNYDER. Is there any additional information you would like to add for the 

record? 

General KAMIYA. None. 

Æ