Posted By Kevin Baron

The flag has been passed at Central Command. Army Gen. Lloyd Austin took command from retiring Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis on Friday, as CENTCOM's focus shifts after more than a decade of war to an end-of-combat period for Afghanistan and expanded counterterrorism across the rest of the region.

“Ten years ago, both Jim Mattis and Lloyd Austin were in the Iraqi desert, on opposite sides of the Euphrates River, helping lead their troops in the drive to Baghdad,” said Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, according to transcripts provided by the Pentagon.

Pentagon reporters were not invited to travel with Hagel to cover the ceremony.

“Jim Mattis has been front and center in every major combat operation this nation has conducted for more than two decades,” Hagel said.  Mattis in his time urged his troops to fight with a “happy heart” and “to always engage their brain before they engaged their weapons.”

“General Mattis,” Hagel said, delicately, “knows that if we are going to ask young Americans to put their lives on the line for our security, then they must be able to trust and have confidence in their leaders.  That's why he always spoke directly and truthfully, no matter the audience -- an essential element of leadership.”

But Mattis rarely spoke to the press, or in public for that matter, during his CENTCOM command. Before taking the warrior-diplomat role at CENTCOM, inherently a politically-sensitive posting, the gruff-talking Marine was known for colorful quips. Our favorite: "I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all."

Mattis saluted into the sunsent with one more good one: “Here today you see a reminder to the maniacs who, by attacking us on 9/11 and thinking -- thinking that they could scare us, we remind them that the descendants of Valley Forge don't scare. Mr. Secretary, Chairman, I would happily storm hell in the company of these troops who I haven't the words sufficient to praise, so I will not try. They know how strongly I believe in them, how strongly they have demonstrated to the world that free men and women can fight like the dickens.”

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, “The challenges the volatile CENTCOM region presents can sometimes seem almost insolvable, yet Jim looked beyond the risks and sought to understand and to consider what was possible.”

“He has a legendary understanding of military history and of historical context. It's rumored, by the way, that his personal library once numbered over 7,000 volumes. And he just didn't have them to look at the pictures; he actually read them, so he claims."

For Austin, his experience closing out the Iraq war -- Austin succeed Gen. Ray Odierno when Operation Iraqi Freedom became Operation New Dawn -- is part of why he was chosen to lead CENTCOM during the coming closing years of the Afghanistan war.

“It was a tough job, combining political challenges with the uncertainties of combat and war, but he completed his mission with a steady, wise, and resourceful hand,” Hagel said.

“I am confident, all members of our institution are confident that General Austin is prepared to lead this command at a time of dramatic change, challenge, and turmoil in its area of responsibility.”

Austin wasted no time using his position as a chance for a little diplomatic outreach, saying, “And as King Hussein of Jordan likewise wisely stated, ‘Without peace and without the overwhelming majority of people that believe in peace, defending it and working for it and believing in it, security can never really be a reality.’”

DOD photo by Erin A. Kirk-Cuomo

Posted By Kevin Baron

Gen. John Kelly was an assistant division commander in 2003 when the Iraq war started. He returned in 2008 as commanding general of Multinational Force-West, which included al-Anbar province. Pictured above, Kelly signed over security control of the province to Iraqi forces. At the Pentagon on Wednesday, this was his answer to what his feelings were, as the war’s 10-year anniversary passes.

“I don’t know, I was there right now, I think I was just pulling into Nasiriyah this time 10 years ago. I’d just been promoted to one-star. I was driving by some vehicles in Nasiriyah, I remember seeing these bodies burned beyond recognition. I thought they were Iraqis, come to find out they were Jessica Lynch’s unit there.

“I think -- we’ll let the historians and the rest of them make the decisions. I just think that we fought -- we went there for the right reason, we fought the war honorably. A couple million young Americans that went there did their duty to their country. Left four or five thousand behind. So I think, their legacy is just that -- you know, we don’t start ‘em, we just fight ‘em. And I think those boys and girls did a real good job fighting that war. And who knows how it’ll turn out, so long as it’s Iraqi-good enough, it’ll still be better than what they had under Saddam.”


Wathiq Khuzaie /Getty Images

Posted By Kevin Baron

If he had the chance to sit with Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he woud ask: What are you thinking?

“If I had a chance to sit with the ayatollah, I would ask him what exactly you are hoping to achieve,” Dempsey said, during an appearance at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in Washington.

“I’d like to hear it from him,” Dempsey said. “What it is that they believe the future holds for the region?”

Dempsey, two days before the 10-year anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, was the featured guest at CSIS for a talk about the Persian Gulf, a region on which the general focused nearly 20 years of his career.

Dempsey has previously defended the Iraq war and today once again suggested that the invasion and occupation were worth the cost.

The chairman, who served in the Gulf War and later was 1st Armored Division commander in Baghdad in 2003, noted the importance of ousting a dictator and “threat to the region” in Saddam Hussein.

“First of all there is no strongman,” he said. As for the Iraq war, Dempsey said the U.S. gave a strategically important country an opportunity -- and left it at that.

“Say what you will whether it was kind of a clean path to that opportunity or one fraught with missteps…. Of course it was. But the point was, we really did give them an opportunity.”

“In Iraq, we have a partner, not an adversary,” he said.

Looking ahead in the region, and with American efforts to achieve energy independence, Dempsey said that shared security interests are the reason the U.S. military will stay engaged in the Middle East for years to come  -- not oil.

“I went to the gulf in 1991, spent almost the next 20 years there on and off and didn’t do it for oil,” he said, with conviction.

ATTA KENARE/AFP/GettyImages

Posted By Kevin Baron

Looking back on his time in Iraq and Afghanistan, Gen. John Allen believes the United States is not going to jump into another big land war anytime soon -- and neither will its NATO allies.

Speaking yesterday at a four-hour, invitation-only roundtable on the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War -- held at FP's offices, in conjunction with RAND -- the former ISAF commander said, "My guess is...that it'll be 20 years before we undertake something like this again. It's going to be a long time before NATO is going to be interested probably in undertaking something that could look like this again." He added: "Coalition development and coalition management is going to be extraordinarily important in the future. I'm not sure that we've put enough emphasis on that."

If Western allies do embark on another massive counterinsurgency effort, Allen argued, the development side of the affair must be done better.

"Something I worry about increasingly as time goes on is the sense that the development strategies in Iraq and now Afghanistan have failed," Allen said. "And that the development dimension of what we have attempted to undertake was either the wrong approach or was just flawed from the beginning...and I think that really deservers some rigorous testing."

"Development with a little 'd' that was wielded day-to-day" by company commanders, Allen contended, was "enormously successful." It was the larger planning and implementation of aid and civilian governance that troubled him. Allen, who retires on April 1, said he worried about people drawing the "wrong conclusions" on development during the counterinsurgencies.

Allen recently turned down President Obama's nomination to lead NATO as supreme allied commander.

Allen was a deputy brigadier commander in Anbar province and played a key role in the so-called Awakening there. Still wearing his 4-starred Marine Corps uniform on Wednesday, he credited the military's effort to learn about local culture for its success in winning local support.

"We spent an extraordinary amount of time preparing ourselves for what we would face in the Anbar province," he said. Understanding the local tribes, where there was "complete absence of governance," he said, gave the military "entree to the tribes" and helped his forces recognize "the potential value of the Awakening when it occurred. We really sensed something was changing in the battle space."

Allen said he is concerned about how the military will retain the lesson of learning local culture as the military services refocus on other types of warfare after Iraq and Afghanistan.

"We're really at a critical moment here, right now," he said.

"The challenge I think for the future for us is how to best prepare our forces for irregular warfare....We must always have a fundamental understanding of the social fabric of the environment in which we're going to be serving. We spent a great deal of time before going to the Anbar province studying the tribes. Tribe by tribe, from the Syrian border right down to Baghdad. I don't think anybody spent more time with the sheikhs than I did. I could tell the sheikhs stories about their grandfathers. Because we spent the time learning about the tribes, thus we were able to operate within the tribes.

"I can remember the day Ken Pollack was sitting with Michael O'Hanlon and Tony Cordesman in the D1 in Fallujah, where we had the sheikhs assembled and we were talking about how, then, do we do the next thing, which is more important, and that's the outlying government with the central government. And that was for us the challenge.

"I remember the sheikh reaching over and patting my thigh and saying here is my government. Well, I couldn't be his government, it had to be al Maliki."

Allen said he was most successful in connecting a local government to the national government.

"That doesn't come naturally. That kind of capacity within our military does not come naturally," he stressed.

"For the future, the intellectual preparation of our officers -- we cannot lose these intellectual qualities that we purchased so dearly over the last 10 or 11 years. As we reset our forces for the future, and our service seeks to re-grasp what makes them essential to the national security of the United States...we've got to maintain our faithfulness to the basic intellectual principles of irregular warfare, the components of which are such things as the proper deployment of development, understanding the relations of subnational and national governance, the social fabric in which you're going to operate. These are Ph.D.-level intellectual demands on our officers, we cannot permit that to go."

Foreign Policy

Posted By Kevin Baron

Chuck Hagel has built up a long and detailed record of his thinking on national security. In speeches and op-eds, Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, has presented a vision of American foreign policy that calls for building alliances, even with adversaries, and for recognizing the limitations of force and the patience required of diplomacy. Here are 10 quotes from President Obama’s nominee to succeed Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta that give us a better idea of what to expect from the former senator.

1.    “There will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq.”

At the height of anti-Iraq War fever in November 2006, the Bush administration was facing a decision: double-down with a massive troop “surge” or pull out before the insurgency could do any more damage. As party lines ruled the day, Hagel published an op-ed in the Washington Post that broke ranks and said out loud that the U.S. was not winning the war. Hagel opposed the coming troop surge and advocated withdrawal. “We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam,” he wrote. By then, Hagel’s opposition was no secret, but the article stuck in Washington’s collective mind.

When Hagel retired in 2008, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) said this in his floor tribute speech: “Senator Hagel's opposition to the war carried very special impact. He is a conservative, a member of the president's own political party, and a military veteran. In fact, he still carries shrapnel in his chest and remnants of burns to his face from his service as an infantryman in Vietnam. Senator Hagel now calls Mr. Bush's war in Iraq ‘an absolute replay of Vietnam.’”

2.    “The worst thing we can do, the most dangerous thing we can do is continue to isolate nations, is to continue to not engage nations. Great powers engage.”

The foreign policy debate over engagement with antagonistic regimes like Iran and North Korea -- and even China and Russia -- continues to rage. Hagel, in a keynote speech to the Israel Policy Forum in New York in December 2008, put himself at odds with the large chunk of Washington -- and Congress -- that prefers sanctions and military threats to diplomacy in attempts mitigate threats abroad. But Hagel’s focus on alliances will fit nicely with the Pentagon’s desire for “relationship building” and “building partner capacity” with friendly foreign armies. In warning that the military can’t fix Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran, Hagel has called for the U.S. to work the region’s countries into “some alignment of common interests.”  

3.    "I told Obama he should pick Biden as his running mate."

In 2008, Barack Obama had a wide selection of Democrats from which to pick his vice presidential running mate. Obama, a young, one-term senator with a worldly personal background but little experience in governance, had already sought out foreign policy mentoring from his elders in Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN), Hagel, and Joe Biden, a longtime senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. When Biden’s own run for the presidency fizzled, Obama kept him in close counsel and made the white-haired elder his second, with Hagel’s blessing. Since occupying the White House, Obama has kept Hagel close. Now the president has Biden at his side, Kerry at the State Department, and Hagel in the Pentagon.

4.    “There is no glory in war, only suffering.”

At the ground-breaking for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial wall in 1982, a much younger Hagel uttered that bold phrase, reflecting the disdain of the nation at the war. Hagel and his brother, Tom, served together in Vietnam, earning Purple Hearts at a time when Americans did not support the troops like they do today. But the wounds have never healed. Hagel frequently invokes the “folly” of Vietnam and is viewed as a non-interventionist. That makes him an interesting pick to lead the military at this moment. In May 2011, once again at the wall, Hagel repeated the phrase in a speech. Keep that in mind as Hagel likely directs the end of the Afghanistan war and the beginning of the expensive post-war era for millions of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, some facing a lifetime of emotional and physical healing. “As we have painfully learned from the tragic misadventure of Vietnam, society must always separate the war from the warrior. We do not celebrate the Vietnam War. We commemorate and historically recognize it.”

5.    “I don't have to be President. I don't have to be a senator. I just have to live with myself.”

On the Senate floor in late 2008, tribute speeches poured in over Hagel’s reputation as an independent voice and respected leader on foreign policy and national security that ignored party lines. As a result, there is a record of praise for Hagel that would appear to make his confirmation far easier than has been portrayed recently. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said, “In two terms in the Senate, Chuck has earned the respect of his colleagues and risen to national prominence as a clear voice on foreign policy and national security.” Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) called Hagel “one of the bravest and most fiercely independent Members of this legislative body.” Reid said that quote, which he appeared to paraphrase on the Senate floor, was Hagel’s answer to those calling for him to run for the presidency or vice presidency. Byrd said: “The Senate needs strong, independent voices like Senator Hagel -- lawmakers who are willing to put the best interests of our country and American people over partisan politics.” Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) said, “In the Senate, Chuck embraced responsibility for U.S. national security as few Senators have in recent decades.”

6.    “The United States will remain committed to defending Israel. Our relationship with Israel is a special and historic one. But it need not and cannot be at the expense of our Arab and Muslim relationships. That is an irresponsible and dangerous false choice.”

Perhaps the loudest pre-nomination concern over Hagel has been his allegedly insufficient support for Israel. But in a 2006 speech on the Senate floor, Hagel said the U.S. should walk and chew gum at the same time in the Middle East. He said that Israel has the right to defend itself, he blasted Arab attacks, and he called for an international military force to deploy along the Lebanese border. But he also said: “The United States and Israel must understand that it is not in their long-term interests to allow themselves to become isolated in the Middle East and the world. Neither can allow themselves to drift into an ‘us against the world’ global optic or zero-sum game. That would marginalize America's global leadership, our trust and influence, further isolating Israel, and it would prove disastrous for both countries, as well as the region. It is in Israel's interest, as much as ours, that the United States be seen by all states in the Middle East as fair. This is the currency of trust.” That position may not mesh with some senators’ views. But how different is it from the White House’s?

7.    “We must avoid the traps of hubris and imperial temptation that comes with great power.”

With the United States more than a year into the global war on terrorism, Hagel invoked the anti-imperial warnings of Winston Churchill in delivering the Landon Lecture at Kansas State University. It was February 2003, and the Bush administration was on the verge of invading Iraq -- an action that would marry U.S. troops to that country for eight years. Hagel set the bar high for using American military force to solve foreign policy problems. Staring down the concern over Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, Hagel said, “American purpose requires more than the application of American power,” warning that the U.S. would have to stay in Iraq for post-war rebuilding. “War, if it is necessary, should be a means, and not an end, to achieve a plan of action to encourage conflict resolution and peaceful change in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.”

8.     “We forgot all the lessons of Vietnam and the preceding history.”

In 2009, Hagel challenged President Obama and the United States to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq sooner rather than later, arguing that neither war was America’s to win. “Win what?” he asked, explaining that changing minds and the quality of life in places like the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region would require “political accommodation and reconciliation.” That term was far more controversial three years ago, when Hagel inked it in the Washington Post.  And, again, Hagel pushed for long-term, multinational coalition building across regions that work with perceived adversaries to find common interests. “Does anyone believe we will get to a responsible resolution on Iran without Russia?” Good question, still.


9.    “It's never a good easy clean choice in foreign policy.”

In a 2007 interview at the Council on Foreign Relations, Hagel basically rejected the “with us or against us” approach of the Bush administration and took a sharp jab at the talking points heard on the presidential campaign trail. Hagel was basically telling the partisans in Washington to leave national security to the grown-ups. Look for him to show his appreciation for nuance in the massive Defense Department by resisting rhetorical spit-balling from Obama’s detractors on issues like the budget, China, Iran, Russia, and even Israel.

10.    “Time is the most critical commodity you have.  If you squander the time, if you squander the moment, if you squander the opportunity, if you squander the boldness, what price do you pay on that?” 

In that same CFR forum heading into the 2008 election cycle, Hagel criticized the Bush administration for not doing more to promote international alliances, spending too much time reacting to crises and not driving a long-term strategic vision. He later challenged President Obama to start thinking about how to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Currently, Pentagon workers describe 2012 as a year spent in waiting -- for a budget, for troop numbers in Afghanistan, and, frankly, for a new defense secretary. If past is prologue, don’t expect a Secretary Hagel to slow roll into the job. Could he convince the president to speed up an Afghanistan war ending sooner than 2014? It wouldn’t be out of character.

PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images

Kevin Baron reports on the people and policies driving the Pentagon and the national security establishment in The E-Ring.

Read More