ADMIRAL MICHAEL MULLEN: Well, good afternoon. Thank you, Donna, for that warm introduction. And certainly, just in your comments, the challenges that are out there are very, very evident.  

     

      As you said, I literally just returned from Moscow yesterday evening. I’d actually been there the week before, on a counterpart visit with the head of the Russian military, and our – both plans for the future and engagement and our military-to-military relations were part of the outcome of the summit.

     

      I’ll just try to put my remarks in three different categories or three different areas and then open it up to your questions. First of all, focusing on the Middle East, the broader Middle East, and specifically the challenges that we have both in Iraq, which remain, and Afghanistan and Pakistan, clearly we’re at a point now in Iraq where the violence level is down, dramatically so. In fact it’s the lowest level of violence since 2003, 2004. And we are at a point – we’re on our plan to support the drawdown, which will start significantly really early in 2010, next year.  

     

      And our ability to do all this is in great part attributed to the 2.2 million men and women who serve and – so many so nobly, including those that paid the ultimate sacrifice. And there isn’t a day that goes by or very many issues that I’m dealing with where our young people in the best military I’ve ever seen aren’t very much on my mind. And I’m privileged to be with them.

     

      So as we move forward in Iraq – and clearly that doesn’t mean it’s – we still don’t have our challenges – I think most of the challenges there right now are political challenges, economic challenges. And that heavy focus in those areas is absolutely critical. And elections, which come up next year, early next year, are vital. And then after that, my expectation is that we will draw down rapidly to get to about 35 to 50,000 troops in the August of 2010, and at that point, certainly, turnover – we transition our combat forces totally to advisory and assistance forces.

     

      As you know, a significant date last week was the 30 June date, where we pulled out of the cities. The last two big areas were Mosul and Baghdad. That actually has gone very well. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t a vulnerable time. Times of transition always are. But I’m confident right now that we’ve got the strategy right and we’re in support of the Iraqi security forces.

     

      We’ve shifted our main effort now to Afghanistan. We’re adding additional troops. Recently we commenced an operation in Helmand, some 4,000 Marines. I think that’s been widely reported. But what that – really what that represents – and the Marines there are the additional forces that we needed to put in place to support the strategy that the president has laid out with respect to the fully resourced counterinsurgency plan. So we’ve got additional troops there. We’ve got new leadership there in General McChrystal and his team. 

     

      And it comes at a time where the violence level in Afghanistan has gone up each year, over the last three-plus years. And the violence level, that part of it, and the Taliban has – they’ve gotten tougher and tougher and better and better. And meeting that challenge is what these forces are right now. And they’re more than anything else focused on security for the Afghan people.  

     

      And I believe in Afghanistan that the center of gravity is really the protection of the people, the people of Afghanistan. And everything we do needs to be focused on them. Then being able to provide the security and create opportunities for diplomatic movement, for governance movement, so that the Afghan government can supply goods and services to their people at every level, not just the national level but to include the local level.  

     

      Engaging tribal leaders so that they can do this, so that they feel supported as well, is really where we are right now. The strategy that President Obama has laid out, with respect to Afghanistan, is really a regional strategy, to include Afghanistan and Pakistan.  

     

      And I’ve been to Pakistan 11 or 12 times over the last year, year-and-a-half. And I think it represents the importance of both the engagement of the Pakistan military, where I spend certainly most of my time, and the importance of the country and, in fact, the importance of the region, to try to create stability.  

     

      Clearly the top priority, with respect to that strategy, is to defeat al-Qaida, whose leadership resides in the FATA – in the federal areas, the tribal areas – in Western Pakistan. But it is a totality of both Afghanistan and Pakistan that we need to move forward on. And the assignment of Ambassador Holbrooke and the civilian military team together is absolutely critical in how we move forward as well.  

      

      There are other challenges in the Middle East. Not least of all is Iran. And they continue in my view to move forward on the nuclear- weapons development plan. And that potentially is incredibly destabilizing in that part of the world, not least of all because they would have a weapon. But what I worry about an awful lot is the beginning or the extension of a nuclear-arms race to that part of the world as well.    And so I’m encouraged by the intent, to both engage and have a dialogue with him, on the part of President Obama. And yet I do think, you know, the window of opportunity is narrowing, as time goes on here. And they still resource – I’ve been asked about the elections in Iraq. And that’s not really my purview.  

     

      All of that notwithstanding, from a military standpoint, they still continue to move down the road towards nuclear weapons. They are state sponsors of terrorism. And they are generally a destabilizing influence in the region and still are in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  

     

      So that’s – I spend a lot of my time on the Middle East and engaged with leaders there, and addressing the issues that challenges us so significantly in that part of the world.  

     

      The second area that I’d like to just spend a couple of minutes on are our people. I am very concerned about the stress and the pressure that our people are under; as I indicated, 2.2 million men and women, roughly half of those Reserves and Guard. They’re the best I’ve ever served with. Donna indicated when I was commissioned. I won’t tell you how hold that makes me. But I – you know, my first war was Vietnam.  

     

      And I remember that. And I remember the things that were so important as we learned our lessons there. And critical to that has been always for our military the support of our – of the American people for our men and women who serve. And I have found that in this eighth year of war and sixth year of fighting two wars, the American people have been spectacular in support of our men and women in uniform.  

     

      And I am very grateful for that. And so are they. They’re the best I’ve ever seen. And yet we’ve asked them to deploy multiple times, for longer periods of time than they expected, and there is extraordinary pressure and stress on them, and not just on the members but also on the families.  

     

      So I, along with my wife – Deborah spends a lot of time engaging military members, their families, trying to understand what their needs are, what – where the pressures are. And we see growing indicators, certainly the suicide rate, particularly in the Army, although the suicide rate is up in all our services. We see a growing stress on family members, spouses and children. We have the signature wounds of these wars, which are traumatic brain injury, whether it’s mild or severe; post-traumatic stress. And in that regard, really for our force I think stress is the enemy more than anything else.  

     

      And we’ve got – we are addressing those needs. And the key, more than anything else, is leadership focus on these great young men and women.  

     

      We turned it around in Iraq because of what they did. Our retention numbers are high. Our recruiting is very good. We have so many – so many, many of our people both in the fight and who want to be engaged and make a difference. And as I indicated, they are the best I’ve ever seen.

     

      And then, the third piece – let me come back to that just for a second. I believe we need – as a country, I would hope we keep our focus on our people, particularly those who have been wounded and their families and the families of the fallen. These are people that have paid, in many cases, the ultimate price. And I think we, as a country, must repay that debt.

     

      And their dreams haven’t changed. They still would like to raise a family. They’d like to go to school, send their kids to school. They’d like to own a home, and they’d like to have two jobs in the family. And I think that the way we – the way that actually is able to occur is the joining of the Department of Defense, the VA; but most importantly, communities throughout the country, reach out to those who’ve given so much, and touch them where they need support and make a difference that sustains their lives over a period of time.

     

      Again, they’re the best I’ve ever seen, and this is – they’ve done exactly what we, as a country, have asked them to do. The third area I’ll just say a couple of things about is the rest of the world. And it is – there are challenges throughout the world. I could specifically note clearly the challenges that we’ve had lately with North Korea, who continue – the North Korean leadership continues to be a destabilizing force in that part of the world; just have to look at events of a couple of days ago to know that. I’m actually encouraged by the unity of the international community with respect to continuing to isolate the North Korean leadership. And I think that’s important, and that we need to keep that pressure up.

     

      I also am focused on other parts of the world where we have challenges. It isn’t – in the Pacific, certainly, it’s not all about North Korea. We’ve got great relationships out there that need to be sustained, with Japan and South Korea and Australia, and other relationships which are emerging.

     

      We’ve got a rising China. And I’ve said for some time a rising China that is peaceful, I think, is a very positive outcome for the world. I am – I have been concerned about their strategic intent, which oftentimes, as they continue to raise their investment in their defense that – you know, where is that going? And clarifying that strategic intent over time, I think, is very important. We also have our forces deployed in places like Latin America, Africa and engaging other parts of the world that very much are focused on engagement relationship, trying to see challenges from their eyes, from the people who live there. How they look at things, I think, is very important, try to understand that, deepen our understanding and our relationships there, and in that regard become preventative (ph) in nature so conflicts actually don’t break out and we have a sustained relationship.

     

      That said, most of my challenges right now with my – for my forces, just on physically what it takes, most of the numbers are in Central Command. So I do that with a force – a very small percentage of my force, as well as a very active Navy and a very active Air Force, which is not as committed in central command as our ground forces are and are charged with that. And they also provide a great strategic reserve for the country.

     

      So there are lots of challenges coming from lots of directions, and I’m sure you might want to ask me about a few of those. So with that, I’ll take your questions. (Applause.)

     

      DONNA LEINWAND: Okay. Well, we got a giant pile of them, so – we have a giant pile of questions, including some submitted via e-mail from all over the world. So – but we will start with North Korea, since you ended with that.

     

      North Korea’s denial-of-service network attack: Was that a big deal, or business as usual?

     

      ADM. MULLEN: This is actually an issue of growing concern. I didn’t say anything about our budget and the budget challenges that we have and actually where Secretary Gates is going. And I’ve been in the – I’ve been in and out of the budget world over the last decade.

     

      And I don’t think that, you know – strategically that this is the best budget – this amendment which is currently being debated as a part – the budget amendment – as a part of the fiscal year ‘10 budget, was a very comprehensive approach to the future, including a significant investment not just in irregular warfare, where we’re trying to move the pendulum a little bit more away from conventional, but also in the cyber world.  

     

      And I think – you know, I grow increasingly concerned about the cyber world and the attacks, whether they’re from individual hackers or from state entities. And that’s something I think we all need to be concerned about. I’m not going to go into great detail about specifics with respect to that, but it’s a growing concern.  

     

      There’s been a significant investment in that. It’s become what I believe is a mainstream issue for all of leadership, not just for specialties. And we need to raise up more people who are capable in this area. And as I indicated, it’s a growing concern, and we need to have this as a big part of our focus with respect to the threat now and in the future.

     

      MS. LEINWAND: Was the Defense Department affected by this latest cyber attack? And how secure would our critical infrastructure be at this time?

     

      ADM. MULLEN: We are constantly probed in the cyber world. We – and have been for some time. And without going into any specific details of that, I’m comfortable that we are alert. We recognize the probes and we are responding. But again, it’s an area of growing concern for all of us in leadership positions.

     

      MS. LEINWAND: Okay, moving on to Afghanistan. With U.S. forces fighting in Afghanistan for nearly eight years, why should Americans be persuaded that the latest ramped-up military push will be the silver bullet? When will this war end? And exactly what is our country’s long-term objective there?

     

      ADM. MULLEN: Well, I don’t think actually there are any silver bullets with all of these major challenges, including in Afghanistan – and Pakistan. It’s been – Afghanistan, while we have been there since 2001, it’s been an undersourced effort for a significant period of time.  

     

      And now, both with what we’ve learned particularly with respect to counterinsurgency and what it takes, and what we’ve learned in Iraq and we apply those lessons to Afghanistan – and there’s not a one-to- one translation there, but from a counterinsurgency standpoint, we have the best counterinsurgency force in the world. And drawing on those lessons, being able to make a difference and understand from a strategy standpoint that this is the right way to go is where we are.

     

      And we are now resourcing it to the needs of the commander on the ground. We just haven’t done that before. And we’re really – we’re really just starting to do that this year.  

     

              And it is those resources, combined with the civilian team that’s going in place, the focus that’s been brought to this by Ambassador Holbrooke, who is the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, this joint civilian-military team, that I think will be – will allow us to move forward in a very positive way.

     

      The focus, again, is on security right now for our – for the Afghan people. And that’s – you know, that’s in fact where our military forces are very much focused.

     

      MS. LEINWAND: So how long do you expect U.S. troops to be in Afghanistan?

     

      ADM. MULLEN: My expectation is that we will have a long-term relationship with Afghanistan. When I get asked about time, I think the best number I can give you is, I’m – I believe that we have to start to turn the tide with respect to the Taliban in the next 12 to 18 months. And I believe the forces that we have and the strategy that we have and the approach that we have will allow us to do that. Then, beyond that – I think, you know, I can give – or we would be able to give a much better assessment of duration after that. And beyond that, I’m just not in a position to be knowingly specific about how long it’ll take.

     

      MS. LEINWAND: What are the major differences between the current U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and the previous strategy?

     

      ADM. MULLEN: The current strategy is – again, it’s a regional approach. I indicated I’ve been to Pakistan almost, I think, a dozen times in the last year, year-and-a-half. And it was my belief – it is my belief that we needed to have a regional approach there. There’s broad responsibilities, not just for those two countries, but for other countries in the region. And so I’m very encouraged by the regional approach. I’m very encouraged by the focus on civilian capacity and building civilian capacity.

     

      We’ve got not just a new military leader there, we’ve got a new ambassador there and a new embassy that’s broader and deeper across a number of areas. There’s focus on development; there’s focus on agriculture; their economy, writ large. And there needs to be great focus on governance, on – again, not just at the national level. And these forces that we’re putting in there now, along with our coalition partners, are focused very much on security to support the elections which come in August this year, as well. So it’s – there is a very comprehensive approach here that covers all of the areas that are required to move this in a positive direction. And I’m actually encouraged by the strategic approach, and now we’re in a position where we just have to execute it.

     

      MS. LEINWAND: Commanders say they need more Afghan forces. Do you see any prospect for more troops to serve as trainers beyond those already announced?

     

      ADM. MULLEN: The tasking that General McChrystal had from both Secretary Gates and myself, General Petraeus, was to go in and come back in 60 days with a 60-day assessment, and zero-base the – everything that you need, specifically from the military side.

     

      And so he’s going through that now. That was – that clock started about the second week in June. And his – he’s basically at the beginning of that assessment.  

     

      So I really look for him to come back and tell me what he needs. And my guidance was, tell me what you need, bring it back to Washington, and we’ll work it from there.  

     

      I’ve had discussions with both the national security advisor, the president of the United States. And we’re all in agreement. We need to – you know, we’re committed to properly resourcing this endeavor.  

     

      So there aren’t any specifics right now with respect to that. I think all of us are concerned about having the right level of footprint but not getting to a point where it looks like we’re an occupying force.  

     

      If we get to that point, it isn’t going to work. Again it’s focusing on the security for the people, so that we can turn this also. And the specifics about trainers: We’ve got about 4,000 additional trainers, which will show up later this year, the 4th Brigade of the 82nd Division.  

     

      That will fill a significant gap that we’ve had for a long period of time. And then the main effort becomes training the Afghan army and the Afghan police, so that they can provide the security for their people.  

     

      MS. LEINWAND: What is the biggest threat our troops face in Afghanistan?  

     

      ADM. MULLEN: The biggest threat is really from IEDs, improvised explosive devices, which have become more and more sophisticated over time. And that combination, with more and more sophisticated attacks from the Taliban, where they use IEDs as well as other tactics, to inflict or to fight out troops.  

     

      And we’ve come a long way with respect to that. But this is an enemy that’s very adaptive and very capable. And as they adapt, we adapt, they adapt again. And so we’re very focused on this in many, many ways in terms of support, for both intelligence as well as capabilities, to counter this threat. But that’s the number-one threat there.   

     

      MS. LEINWAND: Military casualties spiked during the surge in Iraq. How great of an increase in casualties are you bracing for, as troop levels in Afghanistan go up?  

     

      ADM. MULLEN: We’ve put, as I indicated, some 10,000 Marines in Southern Afghanistan. We know particularly in Helmand province, where 4,000 of them launched an operation just a few days ago, that that’s going to be a very tough fight.  

     

      I’ve said for some time, my expectation is, as we add more troops, there are unfortunately and tragically going to be more casualties. Certainly we’re doing everything we can to minimize that. 

     

      But I think the fighting for the next 12 to 18 months is going to be very, very challenging. And with that certainly comes the casualties that go along with that. And again that’s back to turning – starting to turn the tide against what has become a more sophisticated threat over the last two or three years. And that’s really where we’re focused right now.  

     

      So my expectation is, we are going to spike. I don’t know how long it’s going to last. We’re certainly aware of that. We’re very focused on that. But again the expectation, by adding these troops in a much tougher fight, is those numbers are going to go up.  

     

          MS. LEINWAND: What’s the status of providing troops with equipment, specifically armored vehicles, that better protect our forces from IEDs?

     

      ADM. MULLEN: Secretary Gates has made this a top priority for the last – literally since he came into office. And these armored vehicles – MRAPs, we call them – we are flowing them to Afghanistan by the thousands. At the end of this year – actually, we recently signed a contract to have a new, lighter-weight all-terrain vehicle that is MRAP-capable, or provides that kind of protection, and we expect that to start arriving in theater in December.

     

      But in the meantime, we’re flowing thousands, and we have, to Afghanistan to meet the needs that are there right now. It’s not the same terrain as Iraq, and we are working hard to, you know, get the right vehicle in the right place at the right time.

     

      But there isn’t any – from an equipment standpoint, there’s no higher priority than to get these vehicles in theater as rapidly as we can. And we’re upwards of about 2,000 – 2(,000) to 3,000 right now that we have in Afghanistan, and we will flow the remainder of the requirement as troops flow in later this year and towards the beginning of next year to meet what the – to meet the needs there that we have.

     

      MS. LEINWAND: Would you describe your top priority to improve support for seriously wounded servicemen?

     

      ADM. MULLEN: I – probably the area that I worry most about with respect to wounded, their families, and families of the fallen is the stress issue, the whole issue of post-traumatic stress. We are, on average now, for our major ground units in the Army, on our fourth deployment. And most of those deployments have been eight, 12, 15 months. We’ve now reduced those deployments to 12 months maximum. And it’s been – the repetitive deployments are what are certainly most challenging.  

     

      Now, I will tell you that when I visit troops there’s also a great skip in their step, because they know they’ve made a difference. They’ve turned it around in a place like Iraq. They’re very confident that they can get the job done in Afghanistan.  

     

      That said, those who have sustained the kinds of wounds – I call them “signature wounds” – earlier, the traumatic brain injury, the    post-traumatic stress – and I think we’re at the beginning of understanding how to deal with that; we’re under-resourced nationally in mental health, and that has – that basically has an effect on underresourcing the military in terms of mental health.  

     

      And so I’m – again, back to – I’m anxious to have communities throughout the land reach out to these young people, who are the best I’ve ever served with and who have made such a difference in serving our country, and work with them as they look to a future – and again, their dreams haven’t changed – and address some of these very, very challenging issues.  

     

      So it’s probably in the mental area that I am most concerned about.

      

      MS. LEINWAND: What impact have you seen from the policy change to allow the press to cover the return of the bodies of fallen soldiers?

     

      ADM. MULLEN: Well, less impact, I think, than it’s been – it’s been very well done. I’ve been up there and observed the process, and I think it’s a very important – I personally believe it was a very important decision. I think that’s the most difficult part of fighting a war, is those that we lose. And I think we as a country owe the kind of both dignity that the ceremonies at Dover – or that the ceremonies at Dover speak to when you see them and respect for those who sacrifice so much.  

     

      And what I’ve seen is that that dignity and that respect has been – has been very, very much supported in the time that certainly the press has been there. And I’m very encouraged by that. I think it’s important that all of us understand the sacrifices that these young men and women make, and certainly that decision, I think, is a very positive step to make that happen.

     

      MS. LEINWAND: What is your assessment of the cooperation the U.S. military in Afghanistan receives from Pakistani military? The Washington Post had a story from the field over the weekend that suggested it’s not so good at the border.

     

      ADM. MULLEN: Actually, part of why I’ve been to Pakistan so often is to engage their military leadership. And when I travel to Afghanistan and Pakistan, the question that comes up, either directly or indirectly, is, are you staying this time or are you leaving? And we left Afghanistan in 1989, and they remember that. We actually sanctioned Pakistan from about 1990 to 2002. And so they’re very wary of what our – what is going to be our sustained position. And that’s why I think it’s so important to engage at every level, and that’s what’s going on right now.  

     

      I think we need long-term partnerships here with both these countries, which are just starting to be renewed under, obviously, very challenging circumstances. And part of that is support for the Pakistani military. And we’ve given significant support there, what they’ve asked for, in many cases, as they adapt. This is a military that’s got focus on two different fronts, whether it’s the Kashmir area in the east, and they recognize there’s an – there is a    significant extremist threat internal to their country that they’re now – that they’re now attacking and dealing with, and it’s very much counterinsurgency-based.

     

          And I’ll use the Swat campaign in recent weeks as an example. A year ago, not many people would have said that the Pakistani military could have pulled that off, and yet they’ve made an awful lot of progress. And then that kind of both effort and the cooperation that we’re trying to generate through our engagement in the long run, I think, with the development of the Afghan security forces and the Pakistani security forces, puts growing and continued pressure on that threat that I talked about earlier.

     

      It’s not perfect. We still are working our way – we have a – we have a ways to go in terms of those relationships, which are between Pakistan and Afghanistan. And that’s, I think, historically known, and obviously we’ve got a ways to go with our own relationships for those two countries. But I think we need to stay engaged, and overall, we’re working – we’re moving in the right direction.

     

      MS. LEINWAND: You have expressed some concern about high levels of civilian casualties sort of undoing your work in Afghanistan. What about the dome – the drone-fired missiles in the tribal areas? Are you concerned about the hit rate there?

     

      ADM. MULLEN: Let me – let me talk specifically to civilian casualties. I don’t think in the history of counterinsurgency you can win by killing, you know, civilians who live there. And I think General McChrystal in his confirmation testimony said it best when he said, you know, the future measure of success in Afghanistan won’t be the number – won’t – the measure won’t be the number of enemy that we kill. It’ll be the number of Afghan citizens that we protect. And I don’t think any – I don’t think I could say it any better – and that civilian casualties, when they occur, set us back.  

     

      He issued a new directive last week that very specifically focused on this. And one of the thrusts is, we will do everything we can and everything we have to to protect our own troops. But leaders need to be focused on – combat leaders need to be focused on not just – not just step one but steps two, three and four in an engagement where a tactical win can well be a strategic defeat.  

     

      And so the leadership, in particular General McChrystal – but I know him well enough to know that he is focusing this right down to the most junior level of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines who would be in combat to understand that. And that’s really where I am with respect to civilian casualties. 

     

      MS. LEINWAND: How about those drones? Tell me about –

     

      ADM. MULLEN: Yeah, do you have any other questions? (Laughter.)

     

      MS. LEINWAND: (Chuckles.) You want to – do you want to talk about how well those are working for you?

     

          ADM. MULLEN: Well, I actually won’t talk about any operational details.

     

      MS. LEINWAND: Okay, we’ll go back to strategy, then. Secretary of Defense Gates has said it’s time to reconsider the policy of preparing the U.S. military to fight two major conventional wars at the same time. The Army chief of staff has said he believes the two- war strategy should be jettisoned. What is your personal view on whether that policy should be rewritten?

     

      ADM. MULLEN: I believe that the focus of what Secretary Gates has put in front of us, which is to continue to shift the pendulum from a conventional capability to an irregular warfare capability, is absolutely critical. And I’ve been in the Pentagon enough to know the Pentagon doesn’t move quickly. We still expend an extraordinary amount of our budget – there are estimates of some 60 to 70 percent – on conventional capability. And where Secretary Gates and I, as well, are, is to move that pendulum and focus on these capabilities that we’ve, one, learned so much about in the wars that we’re in.

     

      But it isn’t just – for me, it isn’t just focusing on the wars that we’re in, because I think these capabilities have great applicability for the future. And for me, it’s all about balance. It isn’t about moving the pendulum from one side all the way to the other. It’s about balance for the future. And I think the ’10 budget, the fiscal year ’10 budget, which Congress is currently debating, to go into effect beginning next October, is very much a step in the right direction.

     

      We are in the middle of our Quadrennial Defense Review, and we are dealing with – one of the issues that we’re dealing with is how to properly size our force for the future, what kind of conflicts we should prepare for in that regard. That – and that covers the gamut of what kind of people skills and what kind of equipment and what kind of training that you need. And there will be – more specifically, that will be an output of that review process that gets us to the sizing construct for the future. But I’m pretty comfortable it won’t be two major contingency operations.

     

      MS. LEINWAND: The Navy and the Air Force have previously told Congress they face shortfalls in fighter jets in the years ahead. Yet the 2010 budget spends less than has been planned on F-18s for the Navy, retires numerous fighters in the Air Force and would terminate production of additional F-22s. Does the U.S. military have a fighter shortfall, or has the Pentagon downsized its required number of fighters?

     

      ADM. MULLEN: It probably depends on whose plans you’re talking about with – to get at a question like that. Certainly we’ve seen – I’ve seen for the last decade a very, very focused bow wave of tactical aviation, to include that of the Air Force and the Navy.

     

      And for the next several years, I’m actually comfortable with the investment, specifically in both F-18s and the Joint Strike Fighter.  

     

      Very – I’m supportive of this, that we need to close out the F-22. And we need to invest in the Joint Strike Fighter for the future, which is a jet that will go the Air Force and the Navy and the Marine Corps, and that that investment is about right.  

     

      We’re at a time in the Joint Strike Fighter program that – you know, clearly of some risk because it’s a new program. But from what I’ve seen, I’m comfortable with where we are with respect to that right now.  

     

      There certainly are discussions about a strike fighter shortfall in the future. I’m not unaware of that and some of the numbers. I don’t think it’s as extreme as some of the numbers I’ve seen. And we need a strong tactical aviation capability.  

     

      But where we are right now, and it’s one of the things that Secretary Gates has directed us, in this Quadrennial Defense Review, to review in detail, to make some decisions about where we go in the future. But I really believe the future is in the Joint Strike Fighter. And that’s where we ought to be focused.  

     

      MS. LEINWAND: Over the next few years, what major systems and programs in the military are likely to be planned for reduction or elimination?  

     

      ADM. MULLEN: (Chuckles.) Actually when you look at the decisions that Secretary Gates recommended to the president, and the president sent to Congress – in the fiscal year ’10 budget – more focusing on programs that had gotten very expensive and were out of control; focusing on programs that were in some ways looking back and not looking forward; programs that were very late in their delivery. And programs which were expected to be along those lines, say, at the five-year point or at the 13- or 14-year point.  

     

      You know, again, the totality of the decisions, the number of major program decisions he made, in the fiscal year ’10 budget – with that proposed amendment to President Obama – it was extraordinary, when you look back over the history of how these decisions get made.  

     

      So I’m not – I wouldn’t – I can’t be predictive about the future, in terms of what specific systems are there. But we did a    very thorough review of what we thought was relevant at the time, given those categories and challenges.  

     

      That will continue. He’s directed us to look at tactical aviation. He’s directed us to look at amphibious-ship lift capability for the future, and fighting capability. And there’s a dozen areas or so that we’re looking at over the course of the Quadrennial Defense Review, and I would think any changes – significant changes that would come to future systems would come out of that review.

     

      That said, he’s made the decisions for, I believe, the vast majority of the major systems in this most recent recommendation in the fiscal year ’10 budget.

      

      MS. LEINWAND: You’ve called for an evolution of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. If you could write the new policy, what would it say? 

     

      ADM. MULLEN: Well, I’m not a policy guy. I’m charged with carrying out the law. I’m charged with carrying out policy. And right now the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and law from 1993 is in effect.  

     

      In some conversations I’ve had with President Obama, Secretary Gates, Secretary Gates recently announced that he’s going to look – ask his lawyers to look at a more humane way to execute the policy. And what I – as I look forward to – and my – the strategic intent of the president is very clear. He wants to change this policy. And that will also take a change in the law. I was asked about this, actually, in my confirmation hearing. And like the law that exists now, you know, should the law change, certainly we will carry it out.  

     

      My – when I’ve talked about looking at this in the future, we have a force that’s under extraordinary stress. And it’s a force that, you know, should this occur, I think we need to implement in a way that is – that recognizes the challenges and the stress that we’re under right now. But, you know, if it does occur or when it does occur, you know, I’ll certainly lead it and carry it out.

     

      MS. LEINWAND: I hate to interrupt the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I wish I were wearing a flak jacket. But I have to keep this – get you out on time.

     

      ADM. MULLEN: Thank you.

     

      MS. LEINWAND: So we are just about out of time, so I just want to make one announcement. First of all, we have a future speaker. On July 10th, Morris Dees, founder and chief trial counsel of the Southern Poverty Law Center, will be joining us. Secondly, I would like to give the admiral a token of our appreciation. Thank you very much. (Laughter.)

     

      ADM. MULLEN: Thank you. (Chuckles.) Thank you. (Applause.)

     

      MS. LEINWAND: And we have one last question for you. You got one minute. Who are among your military heroes from the U.S. or abroad, historically speaking, and what have they taught you? In one minute. (Laughter.)

     

      ADM. MULLEN: Well, on the Navy side, it’s an admiral by the name of Ray Spruance, who was known as “the quiet warrior.” He was a very patient guy that had an obvious – a big impact for historians at the Battle of Midway. And lots of people recognize that that was the battle that turned the tide in the Pacific.  

     

     And someone else that I admire greatly is George Marshall, and how he did what he did, how he engaged from a leadership position both on the political side – and he was very clear about, you know, the political and military relationship. And I think he has set the standard for all of us who wear a uniform and who fought through a very, very difficult time, obviously, in the war – in certainly the Second World War, and I admire him greatly. And he taught us all a lot, and I’m grateful for that.

     

      MS. LEINWAND: Thank you very much.

     

      ADM. MULLEN: Thanks, Donna. (Applause.)