Secretary of Defense Robert Gates spoke as a witness before the Senate Armed Services Committee, and then before the House Armed Services Committee, touching on topics including missile defense. The following is a transcript prepared by Space & Missile Defense Report, providing excerpts of his views in testimony before the Senate and House committees,. As well, he authored an article in the current January-February issue of Foreign Affairs, the magazine of the Council on Foreign Relations, in which he warned of coming cuts in defense programs, and excepts of his article are presented here. Lawmakers in both the House and Senate cited the article in asking him questions. Finally, for comparison, there are his views on missile defense presented before the Senate committee two years ago. Senate Armed Services Committee:
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), committee chairman — Would you support further exploration with the Russians of the possible cooperative arrangement in the area of missile defense?
Gates — Sure. I think that there’s real potential there. I’ve outlined it to, first to President Putin and subsequently to President Mevedev. I think there’s some real opportunity here. Russia’s clearly not the target of our missile defense endeavors. Iran is. We have a mutual concern there. I think that the Russians have an unrealistic view of the timeline when an Iranian missile with the range to attack much of Russia and much of Europe will be available. But I am very open to the idea of pursuing further cooperation on missile defense with Russia.
Levin – And is that also the position of the Obama administration, as far as you know?
Gates — Frankly, the subject has not been discussed, as far as I know. I expect it to be on the agenda here pretty soon.
Levin — I had a very brief discussion with the new secretary of state (former Sen. Hillary Clinton, who was a member of Levin’s Senate Armed Services Committee until joining the administration) on this subject, and I think her thoughts are very similar to yours. And I think that’s good news.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-D-Conn.) — (Why don’t you see whether defense spending could be part of the economic stimulus bill.) I’m not thinking about getting into controversial programs, but things we’re going to have to spend money on anyway over the next five-six-seven years. Should we be thinking about accelerating … those programs now?
Gates — We were asked to make a submission to the White House of programs that fell within the guideline of being able to be started within a matter of months. We have given them some suggestions, in terms of military hospitals, clinics, barracks, some child care centers, and things like that, where we think the work could begin right away, or the work is already underway and could be accelerated.
Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) — (if the military were to shut down the F-22 Raptor strike fighter aircraft line, that’s a loss of 95,000 jobs.) If we truly want to stimulate the economy, there’s no better place to do it than in defense spending. And when you look at specific programs that are in place, you’re not only talking about maintaining jobs, but increasing jobs.
(Question) — In light of China’s continuing military modernization efforts, do you believe that the forces in the Pacific Command are properly equipped to address any possible future threats related to China’s modernization, particularly with regard to Pacific Command’s … basing strategic needs?
Gates – Yes, sir. I think that we need to complete the relocation programs with respect to Guam and Okinawa, as well as in South Korea. But I think with those — with the forward deployment of the George Washington to Japan, I think that the U.S. forces, both Navy and Air Force in particular, are well positioned. We have a number of programs underway in development that are intended to counter some of the Chinese technological advances that have the potential to put our carriers at risk. And I think we’re making good progress on those. And I think we have capability in place to be able to deal with any foreseeable Chinese threat for some time to come.
Is there any indication at all that the Russian government is interested in talking with us meaningfully about moving to something like this [joint participation in the European Missile Defense system?
Gates — I think that — I had the distinct impression when I presented a range of opportunities for cooperation and transparency to then-President Putin, that he was actually taken by some of the ideas, that there were some opportunities for cooperation, and I think — being an old Kremlinologist, what got my attention was the fact that when Secretary Rice and I first sat down to meet with Putin, and they brought in all the press, Putin just basically beat the tar out of the United States on every conceivable subject. And once the press left, we then had a nice civil conversation. But after our meeting, it was clear he had talked to — in his comments to the press, … very positive, that he heard some very interesting ideas. And equally important, when we began our two-plus-two meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov, and my Russian counterpart, Lavrov — instead of opening with the same kind of screed against the United States — started off by talking about how there’s been some interesting exchanges of ideas, interesting possibilities for cooperation, and they look forward to pursuing that subsequently. We’ve also heard informally from some of their military that there was interest in pursuing some of these possibilities. They were intrigued by the possibility of working together on some of this. For example, a joint data center in Moscow, and sharing the radar capability, and so on. So I think, you know, they’re — in writing, no. But in some of the things that have been said, some of the inferences, I think if we were able to get some of the political baggage out of the way, that there is actually some potential for cooperation.
Question — Is it your view that in any event, it is essential that the United States continue its current plans for missile defense deployment in Eastern Europe?
Gates — Well, as I said earlier, we have not had the opportunity to pursue this in the new administration, and to discuss the administration’s policy on it. I will say this. All of the NATO heads of government unanimously last April in Bucharest endorsed the importance of a NATO-wide, European-wide missile defense capability. So this is a commitment that has been made by the alliance. And so I think we at least need to take it very seriously.
A rudimentary — we have a missile defense capability that is able to take on a rudimentary threat. It is clearly not aimed at dealing with a large-scale threat, for example, from either Russia or from China. I happen to think it’s important. I think that having a layered defense such as we are building, that includes the Ground-based [Missile Defense] interceptors, is very important.”
Levin — NATO has been supportive of exploring — NATO has been supportive of what we’ve been doing up to now in Poland and the Czech Republic. Would NATO, in your judgment, likely support those kinds of explorations between us and the Russians, if we undertook them?
Gates — I think they’d welcome it.
House Armed Services Committee
Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), co-chairman and co-founder of the Congressional Missile Defense Caucus — I think you were a tremendous leader in the previous administration and I thought you were very effective at advocating for the European Missile Defense site. So I guess I have to ask you, what advice will you give the new president on the European site, and what are … implications for our strategic partnerships in Poland and the Czech Republic, and … Russian perceptions if we delay or abandon this mission?
Gates — Well, I think the place to start is by acknowledging that the NATO heads of government unanimously last April in Bucharest endorsed the idea of the importance of missile defense for Europe, and, in particular, a layered defense. So I think we need to start with the reality of what our NATO allies have supported, and what they have indicated they would do. As I indicated in my testimony this morning before the Senate [Armed Services Committee], I think … that there are now some new opportunities in terms of trying to persuade the Russians to participate with us in this program. That would clearly please the Europeans, please our NATO allies, and frankly I think — the Russians — my conversations [with President Putin] and other conversations that we’ve had with their military, I think that they’re actually — if you put the politics aside, there’s actually some interest in this. So my hope would be that we could — we need to remember where the alliance is. But I think there also are some opportunities in terms of reassuring the Russians with respect to the [EMD] sites in Europe, but at the same time perhaps getting them to partner with us. They’ve indicated interest in things like the joint data, the joint data center in Moscow, the joint use of radars. I think part of their problem is that they have a different perspective on how soon the Iranians can have a missile of enough range to reach Russia and most of Western Europe. And frankly I think their intelligence is just bad. Because I think our view is that they could have a missile with that kind of range in two or three years. The Russians talk in terms of 10 or 15 years. And I just think that’s wrong.
Franks — Well, I think that’s a critically important distinction. Because the big thing about the European site is, it potentially has the ability to devalue the Iranian nuclear program if it is brought online soon enough. And I think that’s a critical consideration for the world. In your testimony, you state that one of the greatest dangers that we face in the toxic mix of rogue nations is terrorist groups and nuclear, chemical or biologic weapons, and North Korea and Iran present uniquely vexing challenges in this regard. And, of course, I couldn’t agree with you more. For nearly two decades, Western strategy on the Iran nuclear issue has emphasized the denial of supplies. And you mentioned other potential non-military ways that you suggest the new [Obama] administration should attempt to blunt Iran’s power. So my question is this: What we have not done in the last decade — what we plan to do in the next two or three years to turn this around. In other words, what have we not done that we should have done, and what do we plan to do in the next two or three years to turn it around? If we find three years from now that Iran has just gained more time, and more fully developed their capability, perhaps even to the point where they have become a nuclear power — which I think is a profound threat to the human family — what will we do then, Secretary Gates?
Gates — Well, first of all, I think that there are still opportunities available to us. What we really require is for the Iranian government to determine of its own accord that pursuing nuclear weapons [is] not in their own national security interests. One way to do that is to make it an extremely costly program for them. I think that the sanctions that we have put in place, both internationally and unilaterally, and in bilateral partnership with some of our partner nations, have had a real impact in Iran. And I will tell you that that impact has been magnified dramatically by the drop of the price of oil from $140 a barrel to $40 a barrel. It has just magnified the impact of those sanctions, and they have serious internal economic problems. But I think we also need to talk about, what are the consequences for Iran’s security if they spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East? What if other countries surrounding them decide that they also must have nuclear weapons? I think under those circumstances, is Iran’s security advanced by having nuclear weapons, or is it degraded? And I think we have a compelling case that we can make.
Franks — Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary Gates. I hope we don’t underestimate their resolve.
Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), the committee chairman — Thank you. The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Larsen.
Rep. Rick Larsen (D_Wash.) — Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Gates, I want to ask a question about China, in a change of pace a little bit, and think a little bit more long term. Most recently, last week, the chief PLA spokesperson planted (garble) in the U.S.-China military relationship, primarily caused by the Chinese opinion of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. Short of reversing U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, which don’t see anybody — very few people in Congress would support — what steps should the U.S. and China take to demonstrate the desire for continued military-to-military exchanges …
Gates — I think that we have some real opportunities. When I — we just opened a direct hotline between myself and my Chinese counterpart about six months ago [that] we agreed to when I was in China a little over a year ago. I think that we have had a number of military officers visit China. We’ve started a strategic dialogue for the first time, talking about strategic intentions and where we’re headed. This is something I have proposed when I visited there as well. Reflecting back on the value and importance of the dialogue we had with the Soviet Union during the SALT talks. If we had better understanding of how each other thinks about these strategic issues, then maybe we can avoid mistakes and miscalculations. So those things are going forward. And I think here is another place where a new administration here, a fresh start, perhaps creates opportunities to reopen the aperture, if you will, on military-to-military contacts. There’s no major point on the arms sales to Taiwan. They warned me about it when we went there. They knew it was going to happen. And it’s just a matter of getting past that and on to the longer-term interests of both states.
Larsen — And I think — even — well both opinions are reflected in the [People’s Liberation Army] white paper. A criticism of it, but also a discussion about the military-to- military relationship with the U.S. On that point, one issue you discussed was the cyber security, cyber instructor. And not to point fingers, but it seems to me that the damaged relations between two countries — the U.S. and China — seems to be greater than the damage caused by any cyber attacks against U.S. cyber infrastructure. That seems to be my view. I don’t know if that’s your view as well. … get back to us a concrete effort to address this.
Gates — I would say, though, in the context of the range of weapons systems and capabilities that we’ve been talking about today and my view of them, and sort of questions about high tech, my view is, one of the highest priorities that we need to focus on going forward, that we’ll be working with the committee on, is the need to strengthen our cyber capabilities, and, particularly our defensive capabilities.
Foreign Affairs magazine article
Other nations may be unwilling to challenge the United States fighter to fighter, ship to ship, tank to tank. But they are developing the disruptive means to blunt the impact of U.S. power, narrow the United States’ military options, and deny the U.S. military freedom of movement and action.
In the case of China, Beijing’s investments in cyberwarfare, antisatellite warfare, antiaircraft and antiship weaponry, submarines, and ballistic missiles could threaten the United States’ primary means to project its power and help its allies in the Pacific: bases, air and sea assets, and the networks that support them. This will put a premium on the United States’ ability to strike from over the horizon and employ missile defenses and will require shifts from short-range to longer-range systems, such as the next-generation bomber.
And even though the days of hair-trigger superpower confrontation are over, as long as other nations possess the bomb and the means to deliver it, the United States must maintain a credible strategic deterrent. Toward this end, the Department of Defense and the air force have taken firm steps to return excellence and accountability to nuclear stewardship. Congress needs to do its part by funding the Reliable Replacement Warhead Program — for safety, for security, and for a more reliable deterrent.
Conversely, militias, insurgent groups, other nonstate actors, and developing-world militaries are increasingly acquiring more technology, lethality, and sophistication — as illustrated by the losses and propaganda victory that Hezbollah was able to inflict on Israel in 2006. Hezbollah’s restocked arsenal of rockets and missiles now dwarfs the inventory of many nation-states. Furthermore, Chinese and Russian arms sales are putting advanced capabilities, both offensive and defensive, in the hands of more countries and groups. As the defense scholar Frank Hoffman has noted, these hybrid scenarios combine “the lethality of state conflict with the fanatical and protracted fervor of irregular warfare,” what another defense scholar, Michael Evans, has described as “wars . . . in which Microsoft coexists with machetes and stealth technology is met by suicide bombers.”
Gates Views Two Years Ago
An article in Space & Missile Defense Report two years ago described how Gates, in written response to the Senate Armed Services Committee, presented his views then, as he sought Senate confirmation of his nomination by then-President Bush to the top Pentagon post. At a press conference shortly after the Democrats won control of the Senate, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), said that the nation should test the missiles it has before purchasing any more.
By contrast, citing potential threats from North Korea and Iran, Gates wrote to lawmakers that the U.S. needs some capability right away. “Defenses with a limited operational capability, at least initially, are better than no defenses,” he said.
“I understand the administration’s policy is to develop and deploy a missile defense capability at the earliest possible date,” he wrote.
“I am told that efforts are underway through continuous testing, to ensure that these defenses are capable of intercepting missiles that threaten our homeland, deployed forces and friends and allies.”
When asked by members of the Senate whether he believes placing a ground-based missile defense site in Europe is in line with near-term priorities, Gates responded that the administration policy is to deploy the best technologies to ensure threats to the United States and its allies can be intercepted. He added that he expects to “delve in this matter with greater detail and with some urgency.”