Panetta Assesses National Security Threats

WASHINGTON, Sept. 7, 2011 — While ter­ror­ism remains a threat to nation­al secu­ri­ty, it is joined by cyber attacks, nuclear weapons capa­bil­i­ty and a num­ber of ris­ing pow­ers among the world’s nations, Defense Sec­re­tary Leon E. Panet­ta said in an inter­view broad­cast last night. “We con­tin­ue to face threats from Iran and North Korea. We’re liv­ing in a world where cyber­se­cu­ri­ty is now some­thing to be con­cerned about,” Panet­ta said in a tele­vised inter­view with PBS’ Char­lie Rose. “We also are liv­ing in a world in which there are ris­ing pow­ers, coun­tries like Chi­na and Brazil and India, not to men­tion obvi­ous­ly Rus­sia and oth­ers, that pro­vide a chal­lenge to us not only in try­ing to coop­er­ate with them, but mak­ing sure that they don’t under­mine the sta­bil­i­ty of the world,” he added.

Panet­ta said his role in meet­ing those threats is lead­ing the Defense Depart­ment in effec­tive nation­al pro­tec­tion.

“It’s about being in charge of the ser­vices, our men and women in uni­form who have to actu­al­ly go out there and do the mis­sion,” the sec­re­tary said.

In an era of per­sis­tent bud­get con­straints, he said, defense must be more agile, both in quick­ly deploy­able forces and weapon sys­tems and in more effi­cient man­age­ment and pro­cure­ment.

“We’ve got to be able to do all of this with­out break­ing faith with those that put their lives on the line, … who are the key to whether or not our defense sys­tem works,” he added.

The sec­re­tary said trust is key not only to effec­tive defense lead­er­ship, but also to the Unit­ed States’ inter­na­tion­al rela­tion­ships.

Panet­ta said his coun­ter­parts in oth­er nations tell him the most impor­tant ele­ment in coop­er­at­ing with the Unit­ed States is “when we give our word, when we say we’re going to do some­thing, … they have to trust that that’s going to hap­pen. We have to be a depend­able alliance part­ner.”

The nation’s troops have the same pri­or­i­ty, he said: “When we say we’re going to pro­vide cer­tain ben­e­fits, we’ll stick to it, [and] that we will care for them if they’re wound­ed, that we will be there for them because of what they’re doing to try to pro­tect this coun­try.”

Such trust is espe­cial­ly crit­i­cal as the military’s mis­sions remain a cru­cial sta­bi­liz­ing fac­tor in the world, he said.

While the U.S. draw­down in Iraq remains on track, the sec­re­tary said, the real ques­tion remains whether the Unit­ed States will main­tain a non­com­bat troop pres­ence there, and if so, what kind of pres­ence it will be. He not­ed that Iraqi Pres­i­dent Nouri al-Mali­ki has indi­cat­ed he wants Iraq to have some kind of train­ing assis­tance from the Unit­ed States after Dec. 31, when all U.S. troops are sched­uled to be out of Iraq in accor­dance with a 2008 agree­ment between the two coun­tries.

“And so the issue of what that will look like, how many will be there, is some­thing that has to be nego­ti­at­ed with the Iraqis,” Panet­ta said.

Mean­while, Iran con­tin­ues to try to exert a “very, very large influ­ence” on events in Iraq, he not­ed.

“They clear­ly con­tin­ue to pro­vide weapon­ry to Shi­ia extrem­ist groups,” he said. “They clear­ly try to exert pres­sure on the gov­ern­ment of Iraq. … And the end result is that we remain very con­cerned that Iran … tries to under­mine the sta­bil­i­ty of Iraq and its future.”

Panet­ta said he has spo­ken direct­ly to Mali­ki about his con­cerns, and the Iraqi pres­i­dent shares them.

“We can­not tol­er­ate hav­ing Ira­ni­ans pro­vide weapons to extrem­ists to kill Amer­i­cans. That is not tol­er­a­ble,” the sec­re­tary said. “And he agrees.”

Mali­ki has made that case to Iran, and Iraqi forces have con­duct­ed oper­a­tions against groups work­ing to trans­fer weapons from Iran to Iraq, Panet­ta said.

“I real­ly can’t com­plain about the coop­er­a­tion we’ve got­ten from the Iraqis in assist­ing us to try to go after these groups that are attack­ing our forces,” the sec­re­tary added.

In Afghanistan, Inter­na­tion­al Secu­ri­ty Assis­tance Force Com­man­der Marine Corps Gen. John R. Allen and U.S. Ambas­sador Ryan C. Crock­er make a good team, the sec­re­tary said, work­ing effec­tive­ly with Afghan Pres­i­dent Hamid Karzai and the Afghans in try­ing to make sure the best poli­cies are in place.

ISAF oper­a­tions in Afghanistan have seri­ous­ly weak­ened the Tal­iban, Panet­ta added.

“We expect­ed a greater offen­sive this year than took place,” he said. “And I think in large mea­sure the rea­son it did­n’t take place is … we have reduced the influ­ence of the Tal­iban, and as a result have giv­en Afghanistan back to the [Afghans].”

Afghan secu­ri­ty forces are “doing the job,” he said.

“They’re going out with our troops. They’re putting them­selves on the line. They’re in bat­tle, and they’re doing a good job,” Panet­ta said. “So I’m feel­ing much bet­ter about the sit­u­a­tion in terms of … being able to turn more of this over to them.”

The larg­er ques­tion mark for Afghanistan’s future, the sec­re­tary said, is the Afghans’ abil­i­ty to gov­ern in a man­ner that pro­vides for future sta­bil­i­ty.

Secu­ri­ty tran­si­tion thus far has been suc­cess­ful, he said, and by 2014, the Afghan peo­ple should be “well on the path” to secur­ing and gov­ern­ing their nation for the future.

Suc­cess­ful rec­on­cil­i­a­tion between Afghan lead­ers and for­mer Tal­iban mem­bers requires insur­gents to meet the con­di­tions that the Unit­ed States and Afghanistan set down, he said.

“They’ve got to … give up their arms, to become a part of their gov­ern­ment, and to renounce al-Qai­da,” he not­ed. “I think they have to be part of the polit­i­cal process that ulti­mate­ly comes togeth­er in Afghanistan if it’s going to be suc­cess­ful.”

Both the Unit­ed States and Pak­istan also should be part of that process, Panet­ta said. Pak­istan is crit­i­cal to region­al sta­bil­i­ty, he not­ed, because it is a nuclear pow­er, its forces are work­ing to com­bat ter­ror­ism, and the nation has a role to play in estab­lish­ing sta­bil­i­ty in the region.

The sec­re­tary said he has “made very clear” to both Gen. Ahmad Shu­ja Pasha, direc­tor gen­er­al of Pakistan’s Inter-Ser­vices Intel­li­gence agency, and Gen. Ash­faq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan’s army chief of staff, that ter­ror­ism is a threat to both their coun­try and to the Unit­ed States.

“If you’re against ter­ror­ism, you have to be against all forms of ter­ror­ism,” Panet­ta said. “You can’t just pick and choose among them.”

Dur­ing those talks, the sec­re­tary said, he made the point to both Pak­istani lead­ers that al-Qai­da has a large pres­ence in their country’s fed­er­al­ly admin­is­tered trib­al areas, and the group con­tin­ues to plan attacks on the Unit­ed States from there.

“I made very clear to the Pak­ista­nis that [we will] defend our­selves,” he said. “We will go after al-Qai­da in the [trib­al area] so that they nev­er have the oppor­tu­ni­ty to attack this coun­try again.”

The Pak­ista­nis have worked with the Unit­ed States to kill or cap­ture ter­ror­ists, he said.

“While we have con­tro­ver­sies and we have dif­fer­ences in a num­ber of areas,” he said, “we’ve got to do every­thing pos­si­ble to work with them.”

Intel­li­gence-gath­er­ing efforts fol­low­ing the suc­cess­ful raid on Osama bin Laden’s com­pound in the Pak­istani city of Abot­tabad pro­vid­ed encour­ag­ing evi­dence of al-Qaida’s decline, the sec­re­tary said.

“They were hurt­ing in terms of their financ­ing,” he said. “We actu­al­ly knew … even before the raid that they were hav­ing a much hard­er time devel­op­ing the finan­cial sup­port that they had had in the past.”

Attacks on al-Qaida’s lead­ers have led to the organization’s finan­cial strug­gles, Panet­ta said.

“When you have peo­ple on the run, it makes it very tough to raise mon­ey and stay on the run at the same time,” he explained.

The Unit­ed States and its allies con­duct sophis­ti­cat­ed and tar­get­ed oper­a­tions, he said.

“These are prob­a­bly the most pre­cise weapons in the his­to­ry of war­fare,” the sec­re­tary told Rose, “and they are used very effec­tive­ly to go after a very pre­cise tar­get.”

Panet­ta stressed that in addi­tion to mil­i­tary approach­es, true nation­al secu­ri­ty requires diplo­mat­ic approach­es to chal­lenges.

“If you’re talk­ing about nation­al secu­ri­ty in this coun­try, it isn’t some­thing that is just a tank and a gun and an air­plane. It’s got to be diplo­ma­cy as well,” he said. “And it’s that com­bi­na­tion of mil­i­tary strength and diplo­mat­ic strength that gives us the abil­i­ty to try to pro­vide direc­tion to the world and try to assist it so that it heads in the right way.”

Source:
U.S. Depart­ment of Defense
Office of the Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of Defense (Pub­lic Affairs)

Team GlobDef

Team GlobDef

Seit 2001 ist GlobalDefence.net im Internet unterwegs, um mit eigenen Analysen, interessanten Kooperationen und umfassenden Informationen für einen spannenden Überblick der Weltlage zu sorgen. GlobalDefenc.net war dabei die erste deutschsprachige Internetseite, die mit dem Schwerpunkt Sicherheitspolitik außerhalb von Hochschulen oder Instituten aufgetreten ist.

Alle Beiträge ansehen von Team GlobDef →