CJCS Addresses Importance of International Involvement in Afghanistan

Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff addresses the media at the Foreign Press Center in Washington, D.C., Dec. 8, 2009. Mullen took questions from the international press regarding President Barack Obama's decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to the war in Afghanistan. (DoD photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Chad J. McNeeley/Released)

Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff addresses the media at the Foreign Press Center in Washington, D.C., Dec. 8, 2009. Mullen took questions from the international press regarding President Barack Obama's decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to the war in Afghanistan. (DoD photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Chad J. McNeeley/Released)

By Ian Graham

The mission in Afghanistan is of vital importance to the United States’ national security, but it’s a collaborative mission that requires international involvement, the U.S. military’s top officer said yesterday.

Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, spoke to reporters from around the world at the Foreign Press Center in Washington, D.C. about the state of American security and how it relates to the Obama administration’s new strategy for Afghanistan.

“Being successful in Afghanistan – winning – is not solely the responsibility of the U.S. military,” he said. “This is not that kind of war, not that kind of struggle. Success will come only by and through a concerted effort by other agencies and other partners. Ultimate success will be the cumulative effect of sustained pressure across multiple lines of operation.”

The war is a regional conflict, he said, and international cooperation is key to carrying out the mission. The commitment by NATO to provide 7,000 more European troops is a positive sign, as is progress by the Pakistani army in fighting the Taliban in their country.

He said the Afghanistan-Pakistan region is the epicenter of Islamic extremism – the planning, training, financing and leadership comes from there. He pointed to the recent bombings in Lahore, Baghdad and the Rawalpindi mosque as “grim reminders of the menace still before us, of the brutality still embraced by radical extremists.”

“That’s why we are so focused on [Afghanistan],” Mullen said. “That’s why we believe this mission is in our vital national security interest and those of our allies and friends. And that’s why we are grateful for the contributions of the other nations committed to the fight.”

Mullen spoke about his recent visit to Fort Campbell, Ky., and Camp Lejeune, N.C., saying the servicemembers who will be carrying out the new strategy have a lot of work facing them.

“Their mission [is] to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida, to degrade the Taliban’s influence, and to prevent Afghanistan or Pakistan from becoming safe havens is not merely about killing or capturing the enemy. It is also about protecting the Afghan people. It’s about earning their trust and learning their culture. At its core, it’s about providing breathing space for the Afghans to protect their own people and to stabilize their own country.”

Mullen said in addition to the increased military presence, an equivalent amount of civilians will deploy to the region – especially from the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development – to help establish good governance, business and agricultural practices.

“We need more civilian expertise on the ground, particularly in agriculture, and our State Department is stepping up to meet that challenge. We need more contributions from our NATO allies, and I’m delighted by the news out of Brussels that some 7,000 more troops will be forthcoming. We need to see effort on the – by the Karzai government to make good on promised reforms,” he said.

Click here to read more about the new Afghanistan strategy on Defense.gov. And, read more about Mullen’s speach at the Foreign Press Center on Defense.gov.



DoDvClips

To visit the Chairman’s Facebook  page, click here.
To visit the Chairman’s Twitter account, click here.
To visit the Chairman’s Channel, click here.
To visit the Chairman’s Flickr account, click here.

Check out these other posts:

This entry was posted in DoD News and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.rogertaylorlaw.com Roger Taylor

    Bravo, Admiral! Encore! Next time please ask Ukraine to commit more than 22 troops, Kazakhstan more than 5. We need REAL help this time, and we need it NOW! Thank you for your service, sir.

    • jennifer.cragg

      Roger, thanks for visiting DODLive.mil and for leaving your comment. V/r, Lt. Jennifer Cragg

  • http://exvi.net/ Exvi

    What sort of benefit would other countries (non-US) receive by getting involved in the struggle in Afghanistan?

    • Modern Furniture

      Afghanistan is in the middle east and middle east has the nice source of oil. I think they support US so that they can have the share on the oil resources. This is my point of view since the war in Afghanistan never ends.

    • Modern Furniture

      Afghanistan is in the middle east and middle east has the nice source of oil. I think they support US so that they can have the share on the oil resources. This is my point of view since the war in Afghanistan never ends.

  • JPK

    Exvi, why always asking “What’s in it for me!”. 1.) terrorism occuring all over the world not just U.S. Just see the Admiral’s comments to cite just a few examples. 2.) all countries should care to do something in the face of oppressive extremist groups like the Taliban not to mention their complete disregard for human rights.

  • A. Scott Crawford

    How many readers watched the Admirals Senate Confirmation on C-span? Without dragging up past frictions between military and civilian ‘political’ personnel beyond evoking that particular instance, other than to remind those working for the Chiefs how shameless political Washington can be… The Admiral should reflect on his first official reception as chair, and then consider what the practical differences are between ‘diplomatic’ and ‘political’ types and military personnel vis a vis something like, “development” or overseeing foreign aid programs. So whereas the Pentagons ‘surge’ in Afghanistan involves thousands to tens of thousands of citizens (soldiers) and support/logistics… when the Dept. of State announced it’s OWN “surge” of personnel to support the DoD, said ‘surge’ was an increase of civilian experts by a whopping 300-ish, from 600 something to 900+. Military readers should reflect on the implications of this cultural friction regarding actually getting something done: The DoD doesn’t typically do things very smoothly, but for the most part the procurement officers and auditors at the Inspector General are sincere. This is not remotely the case at the DoS or AID. In fact, according to the GAO, USAID, between 1993 and 2002 could not account for roughly HALF of its overseas payments… adding up to something like $30 billion that just ‘got lost’.

    Personally, I’d strongly recommend that the DoD demand it’s own Inspector General be given unqualified authority over Dept. of State and USAID payments in Countries that are active war zones, otherwise the military in general and the Admiral specifically will find that the practice of the Taliban “taxing” development budgets with a tithe of 10-20% will continue. It’s one thing to bow to political correctness and pressure when the issue is just another basket of civilian fraudsters, but when U.S. tax dollars from civilian ‘experts’ paying protection money to our enemies on the sly buys bullets and explosives that end up being used against soldiers and marines on patrol, the Chain of Command needs to put it’s foot down and stand up to the fancy diplomats and beltway ‘experts’.

    Sincerely,

  • Maddie Farraher

    Afghanistan is a huge problem that requires many approaches. We can’t just look at the military aspect of this “war on terrorism”. We need to challenge the Taliban’s approach to the future as well. They have been building extremist schools in poor regions where Afghanistan’s govrnment has not built schools and where the people can not afford a teacher to teach their children. They send their children to the Taliban influenced schools that teach children to hate western ways and people. The graduates of these schools also have been taught to have many children and to raise them in these beliefs. The Taliban is not just thinking about the present; they are looking ahead up to 60 years from now. The only way we can prevent these children from experiencing this type of education is to build other schools in these areas with a curriculum that is not biased against other peoples or religions or differences. Once we have helped these people, shown them that the American people want to help them, we can realize that the “war on terrorism” can only be fought after we have won our war on ignorence.

    There is a nonprofit organization that builds schools in Central Asia called the Central Asian Institute (CAI). The CAI builds schools for girls and boys in areas where people may not afford to send their children to school previously. The CAI will pay for materials, teachers and will also give students scholarships for them to further their education. Their website is http://www.ikay.org. I am in no way related to this organization aside from the donations I give.