FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Military to Reduce Community and Public Outreach
By Karen Parrish
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Oct. 18, 2013 - Pentagon officials announced a plan today that will enable the military services to resume conducting community and public outreach activities in the new fiscal year, but at a significantly reduced capacity. This cost-cutting measure will yield a savings of $104 million in fiscal year 2014.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel outlined the Pentagon's new strategic approach to community outreach in an internal memorandum to service chiefs and other military leaders. Many activities, including the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds air demonstration teams, will resume, but at a more limited frequency than in previous years.
"Even given the austere fiscal climate, Secretary Hagel believes the Defense Department must preserve vital links between service members and communities across the country," said Pentagon Press Secretary George Little.
Little said that the new guidelines are part of a careful balancing act and demonstrate the Department's determination to make the most efficient use of resources.
Community outreach brings Americans together in communities across the nation and helps inspire some to serve, builds support at home for those deployed in harm's way, and helps to ensure education, employment and wellness initiatives evolve to serve veterans, Hagel noted in the memo directing these changes. Community engagements have tangible value in that they "showcase our superior combat power, demonstrate readiness to defend the nation, and help to preserve the all-volunteer force," Hagel wrote.
"It is unfortunate that sequestration restrictions have kept us from connecting with nearly a half-billion people worldwide over the last six months, and required us to withdraw support from more than 2,800 events throughout the country," the secretary wrote.
A senior defense official noted that this plan reinstates at a 45% reduced capacity: the jet and parachute demonstration teams, band and ceremonial unit appearances, port visits, service weeks, and nonprofit and corporate leader outreach."
The connections between U.S. service members and the civilians they defend are important to active and reserve service members, their families, and veterans, the secretary said in his memo.
"Community and public outreach is a crucial Departmental activity that reinforces trust and confidence in the United States Military and in its most important asset- people," Hagel asserted. "It is our obligation to sustain that trust well into the future."
Showing posts with label DEFENSE SECRETARY HAGEL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DEFENSE SECRETARY HAGEL. Show all posts
Monday, October 21, 2013
Sunday, August 25, 2013
HAGEL SAYS DEFENSE HAS OPTIONS FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA ON SYRIA
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Hagel: Defense Department Has Options for Obama on Syria
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service
ABOARD A MILITARY AIRCRAFT, Aug. 23, 2013 - Shortly after takeoff on the first leg of his second official trip to the Asia-Pacific region, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel joined a video teleconference with President Barack Obama's senior national security advisors that focused on the deadly situation in Syria.
n the latest tragedy in the stricken nation, more than 1,000 men, women and children died in what may have been a chemical weapons attack on its own citizens by the government of President Bashar Assad. The United Nations and others are investigating the attacks.
After leaving Hawaii, the first stop on his trip, Hagel spoke today with reporters who are traveling with him to Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and the Philippines.
"The president has asked the Defense Department for options. {As] always, the department is prepared, has been prepared, to provide ranges for all contingencies for the president of the United States, and we'll continue to do that," Hagel said.
"We're dealing with a very serious issue," the secretary added. "We are working with our international partners, the international community [and] the United Nations. We are looking at every option."
Referring to an interview that Obama gave Chris Cuomo on CNN about Syria, Hagel said the president framed the situation there "exactly right" when he said the United States must be part of the international community in its response to the actions in Syria.
As the president noted, the secretary said, the United States must consider its long-term objectives, its long-term interests, and its objectives for influence and outcomes in deciding upon any response.
"The Defense Department has a responsibility to provide the president with options for all contingencies, and that requires positioning our forces [and] positioning our assets to be able to carry out whatever options the president might choose," Hagel said.
"On the specific option of military use or force in response to what we will determine at some point here very shortly what did happen, and we're still assessing that," he added. "I think the range of military options is always part of the range of options the president has."
Hagel said he thinks the international community is moving quickly to get the facts and the intelligence right about what happened in Syria so a decision can be made swiftly about how to respond.
"If, in fact, this was a deliberate use and attack by the Syrian government on its own people using chemical weapons, there may be another attack coming," he said. "A very quick assessment of what happened and whatever appropriate response should be made."
Hagel: Defense Department Has Options for Obama on Syria
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service
ABOARD A MILITARY AIRCRAFT, Aug. 23, 2013 - Shortly after takeoff on the first leg of his second official trip to the Asia-Pacific region, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel joined a video teleconference with President Barack Obama's senior national security advisors that focused on the deadly situation in Syria.
n the latest tragedy in the stricken nation, more than 1,000 men, women and children died in what may have been a chemical weapons attack on its own citizens by the government of President Bashar Assad. The United Nations and others are investigating the attacks.
After leaving Hawaii, the first stop on his trip, Hagel spoke today with reporters who are traveling with him to Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and the Philippines.
"The president has asked the Defense Department for options. {As] always, the department is prepared, has been prepared, to provide ranges for all contingencies for the president of the United States, and we'll continue to do that," Hagel said.
"We're dealing with a very serious issue," the secretary added. "We are working with our international partners, the international community [and] the United Nations. We are looking at every option."
Referring to an interview that Obama gave Chris Cuomo on CNN about Syria, Hagel said the president framed the situation there "exactly right" when he said the United States must be part of the international community in its response to the actions in Syria.
As the president noted, the secretary said, the United States must consider its long-term objectives, its long-term interests, and its objectives for influence and outcomes in deciding upon any response.
"The Defense Department has a responsibility to provide the president with options for all contingencies, and that requires positioning our forces [and] positioning our assets to be able to carry out whatever options the president might choose," Hagel said.
"On the specific option of military use or force in response to what we will determine at some point here very shortly what did happen, and we're still assessing that," he added. "I think the range of military options is always part of the range of options the president has."
Hagel said he thinks the international community is moving quickly to get the facts and the intelligence right about what happened in Syria so a decision can be made swiftly about how to respond.
"If, in fact, this was a deliberate use and attack by the Syrian government on its own people using chemical weapons, there may be another attack coming," he said. "A very quick assessment of what happened and whatever appropriate response should be made."
Thursday, July 18, 2013
TRANSCRIPT: SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HAGEL'S SPEECH AT NAVAL AIR STATION JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Presenter: Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel July 16, 2013
Media Roundtable with Secretary Hagel at Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Florida
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE CHUCK HAGEL: I've seen these guys before.
So, good afternoon. Thank you for giving me some time. Since these traveling partners have been hearing what I've been saying, let me take just a minute to address all of you but in particular you on this side of the table to first let you know that I'm here today as a result of the three-day trip I'm taking. Visiting bases, stations here on -- on the Southeastern part of the United States.
I'm doing that for two reasons. One to just get a sense of what our people are thinking, how they're feeling. This is a difficult time that we're going through. It's difficult for our people. I wanted to listen to them, and I wanted them to have an opportunity to see me directly and hear from me, ask me questions. And I've always thought that any of us who have the privilege of serving in leadership positions always have a primary responsibility to deal directly with the people we lead no matter how big the problem is or how difficult it is. So they deserve that. They need to see me and hear from me.
Third, it's always very helpful for me or I think anyone who serves in any of these jobs to get better informed on what the issues are, what we're doing, how we're doing it, what the problems are for our people. I will never, ever know enough about this job. But I'm trying to learn everything I can about this job. And when I can arrange it to break out of Washington to come visit our people and see our facilities and understand better what they're doing, I do it. It's very helpful for me to get a better sense of this.
I was in Colorado a couple of weeks ago, visiting our bases out there and NORAD, NORTHCOM, Fort Carson. Was in Omaha three weeks before that for a day. And I'll continue to make these trips around the country. We'll have more planned this summer.
So that's why I'm here. Glad to be here. I've always liked Jacksonville for a lot of reasons. It reminds me much of Omaha. Not that Omaha has as much water, but we are on the Missouri River. But it's a community that clearly reflects years and years of very good, solid, effective community leadership, political leadership, military leadership, business leadership, educational leadership, union leadership, religious leadership. Every component that makes a successful community successful. You've done it here in Jacksonville, and it shows. And that's why it's always reminded me of Omaha. The same components, same kind of fabric.
I had some time with your mayor this morning. Spent some time with him. And then an opportunity a couple of hours ago to see three of your congressmen who represent this area. Spent a little time with them. And then had a chance to see Jesse Jackson this morning as an additional part of the meeting and addressed one of the groups that was having a convention there at the -- transportation group at the hotel.
So that's what I'm doing, why I'm here. And be glad to respond to questions. What I'll do, I guess, since I'm the ringmaster, just go back and forth. Is that the way to do it?
STAFF: (inaudible)
SEC. HAGEL: OK, we'll start with Associated Press and then come back and forth.
Q: Thanks. You talked a lot about priorities today. We've heard from some people who are very anxious about their job situation. Can you explain the thinking behind the Air Force's decision that was announced yesterday to reshuffle some of the funding to allow some of the combat jets to start flying? It seems like they got around some of the sequestration intent in doing that.
And also, you discussed today a 20 percent personnel cut that your office and General Dempsey's office is taking. Is that already in place, and how much money do you expect to save?
SEC. HAGEL: Well, let's start with the second question. We will be rolling out and announcing more formally the specifics of these reductions that came as a result of the review that I had directed. It will -- the component that I referenced this morning in answer to a question would represent a 20 percent cut in the office of the secretary of defense, 20 percent of the joint staff, and a 20 percent cut in the service chief's headquarters' staff. And we'll roll that out and give you more specifics.
It would be for the 2015-2019 period. As you know, the next budget that we will present is the 2015 budget. That is essentially what we'll be doing.
On your first question, the Air Force's decisions, those were -- and I haven't seen all of the specifics. I knew that they were going to make that decision. These are, I understand, readiness training missions. All of the -- all the cancellations of air shows and Blue Angels and all that, that all stays in place. These are readiness training missions.
And I wouldn't describe it as getting around sequestration. It's -- I mean, you heard me say readiness is something that was a priority for all of us as we were going through this process, to protect readiness in every way we could. As you know, we've had 16 squadrons stand down. So, the Air Force is taking a pretty big hit on standing down a lot of their squadrons here. So as we adjust the numbers and get more familiar with what we have here as we close out 2013 -- we're two-and-a-half months away from 2013 -- then the services have the flexibility, which I have noted in previous conversations this morning and other places. I want them to have their own flexibility to use those funds to focus first always on readiness. And that's part of the Air Force decision, as well.
Q: But nothing has changed in terms of current events or other things that might require this --
SEC. HAGEL: Oh, oh, you mean some world event or something with --
Q: (inaudible)
SEC. HAGEL: No, no, no, not at all. Unless you know something that I don't know. (Laughter.)
Yes?
Q: You talked (inaudible) town hall meeting. We've talked to these people. Same thing that goes that may force (inaudible). These people seem very worried about their future. Not just sequestration, but there's other stuff. What do you tell these people that eventually it's going to get better?
SEC. HAGEL: Well, I don't know if you were there. You were there -- some of you, I think, were there this morning. I don't know if you were.
To answer your question, one of the things I led with is uncertainty. And uncertainty is a tremendous enemy for all of us for obvious reasons. And when people are living in a state of uncertainty, when these young professionals with families are not sure about their future, that impacts their concentration. That impacts their job. That impacts everything. And what will then follow, if they aren't sure about their future and whether they'll have a job and what kind of a job.
Then the next step there is for people to start looking for other work and other options. And I addressed this yesterday, and I addressed it this morning that I'm very concerned about that. That will produce a loss of skill sets that are vital to our national security and our readiness. I know that. I understand that.
What could I tell them? Well, I always lead by saying I'm going to tell you the truth. I'm not going to give you any false hope, and I was very honest with them. We're going to have the furlough, as everybody knows, situation until the end of 2013. 2013 is over. 2014 begins October 1. If sequestration continues, which as you all know is the law of the land, that probably we'd see that kick in January 1, that $52 billion cut for the rest of 2014.
So yes, there's uncertainty. Yes there's anxiety. Yes, there are legitimate questions. And that's part of the overall problem that we're dealing with. Do I think it's going to get better? As I said, I have to lead this institution not based on what I think, what I hope, what I believe, may be. I've got to prepare this institution and our people for the facts of life and the reality as it is and the law that is now in place. Would something change to change that? Maybe. Hopefully. But I'm not going to mislead any of our people and give them any false hope here that that's going to happen.
Q: We've had a number of conversations (inaudible). I was wondering if you could tell us anything about the nature of the (inaudible) or is there (inaudible) things will get worse? I'm just trying to understand the nature of (inaudible). And, if you have anything on North Korea.
SEC. HAGEL: On North Korea, I don't have anything further than probably what you all have. Essentially what you have is what I have. I've seen your reports this morning; I got your reports an hour ago on this. I don't have anything really further to tell you. The Panamanians did the right thing. We appreciate the action they took. It's now being investigated and sorting out really what was going on and where cargo -- I've not seen verification of that cargo, but where the cargo -- whatever it was was headed and those kinds of questions. And we'll get those facts. But I don't have anything beyond that.
As to my conversations with Minister al-Sisi, yes, I've had probably 10 conversations with him in the last week. Spoke as recently as Friday night. You all know that I can't talk about those private conversations. Not just me, but in all of our governments' leaders conversations, we have encouraged publicly and privately the leaders of Egypt, including the interim president, interim vice president, prime minister in particular, to be inclusive, to bring all political parties in, to allow them to participate in the writing of the constitution and the elections. It's the only way it will work. We've been very clear on that; not just privately but publicly.
As you all know, Secretary Kerry's going to be in Jordan, I think, within hours to meet with Middle Eastern leaders. And also as you know, Deputy Secretary Burns was just there. I think he's left now, but he met with Minister al-Sisi as well as other leaders.
It's a dangerous situation, and we're encouraging the leadership there to do everything it can to stop the violence on all sides, to be inclusive as they proceed. And I think that's about all I can tell you. Thank you.
Q: Have you seen any loss of productivity or efficiency in your tours of civilian operations? And have you heard from any of those civilians saying, "I can't take this and the future that's coming? I'm going private now?"
SEC. HAGEL: Well, I've not heard any civilian say it as directly as you just said it to me. They may have said it to others and certainly I suspect that there are many thoughts in that direction.
As to have I seen any downturn in efficiency effectiveness at our plants, where I would start in answering that, when you're furloughing people one day a week, that's going to have an impact. It can't but help have an impact. I do know, because I've been told this by a number of our civilian employees -- because I have both uniform leadership and civilian leadership -- that the main concern that has been registered by many of our civilians who are being furloughed is their concern about the quality of their work and the job in which you just mentioned.
Of course, they're concerned about their pay, and of course they're concerned about what this is doing to their families. So we do know that this is going to have an impact. I've said it, others have said it on every component.
Q: Because as soon as the handwriting on the wall occurred in the newspaper business, we started laying off people. Others started leaving on their own to find a more secure future.
SEC. HAGEL: Mm-hmm. Well, you're right.
Q: Mr. Secretary, last week in your letter to Senator Levin, you encouraged lawmakers to, among other things, lift the restrictions that have forced the Pentagon to slow the reduction of the Army and the Marine Corps, the end strength numbers. I'm wondering at this point in your assessment of the situation, do you think it's inevitable that active duty force levels are going to go below the current targets? And specifically, if you could talk about your strategic review that's been on your desk for a couple of weeks? What do those scenarios -- what kind of impact will those scenarios have on active duty force levels?
SEC. HAGEL: Well, you all know that reductions that are now in place on active duty -- I mentioned a couple of them this morning Marines and Army. And the chiefs, all of our uniformed leaders are in the process of moving those down, hit those targets in 2017, 2019 and so on. If sequestrations continues and we go into 2014, we're subject to a $52 billion cut, this is, as I have said, it's going to affect everything. There's no component of our force structure or civilians, any part of our defense department that will not be affected.
So, your question about do you envision coming down, for example, in the Army below 490,000, these are realities that we may be faced with. But again, I would say the uncertainty of not knowing puts us in a position, and part of the review -- the major objective was to prepare for these eventual not just possibilities but probabilities.
When I asked in that review to look at scenarios for a continuation of sequestration, we know what the 2014 budget planning is because we prepared that. We presented that. We planned for that. And then something in between, if there would be a new budget agreement somewhere between sequestration and where the president's 2014 budget comes out.
Q: (inaudible).
SEC. HAGEL: Yes --
Q: -- $37 billion in sequestration level cuts between March and September of this year, (inaudible).
SEC. HAGEL: Yes. I think we did -- that number got early (inaudible) 42 billion thrown out. But I think the real number now that we're living this is 37.
Q: (inaudible) reaction because you've been, you know, going over the speech with different civilian (inaudible) for the last couple of days. Can you describe how you feel when you're standing up there talking about this? The other part I want to know your conversations with the president about these upcoming , the $52 billion. Describe those conversations.
SEC. HAGEL: Yes.
Q: -- compensation and (inaudible) talking about (inaudible)?
SEC. HAGEL: Well, as I think I noted -- and it's been out in the press -- that the deputy secretary of defense, Ash Carter and General Dempsey, who I asked to lead the review, and I and the comptroller, Bob Hale, and essentially the technician of the effort that was made, Christine Fox, the five of us -- and also the vice chief, Admiral Winnefeld, we briefed the president last week in that meeting where his OMB director, his national security adviser, his chief of staff and other senior members.
We got into a very specific presentation, conversation, give-and-take with the president. And it was a sobering meeting and we had been -- Chairman Dempsey and I, over the last few weeks, talking to the president every week about progress and giving him some sense of this.
Prior to that briefing, the new national security adviser, Ambassador Rice, came over to the Pentagon, spent some time with me on this. And then she spent the next day some time with Chairman Dempsey and his people on this, getting familiar with numbers and the broader sense of impact.
Then the next day, she spent some time with Ash Carter and Christine Fox and Bob Hale going into more of the specific numbers. The chief of staff to the president, Denis McDonough, came to the Pentagon a couple of weeks ago, and we gave him about an hour briefing.
So I tell you this because it gives you some sense that the president and his senior staff have been informed as we go along, the OMB director has been given reports on this by Ash Carter almost every other day.
And so the president wasn't receiving something he wasn't prepared for. He had gotten read-ahead material as well.
So that's how it all occurred, the specifics of it were, as you would expect, we gave him not just top-line numbers, but also consequences and options.
The President of the United States can never be surprised. And General Dempsey and I are committed to that, not surprising our commander in chief. That means also that his national security adviser can't be surprised, and his chief of staff can't be surprised and his national counterterrorism chief cannot be surprised. The OMB director can't be surprised.
So I think we've done a good job of bringing everybody along here on this. I don't want to go beyond that into the conversation I had with the president. But he understands this clearly.
Q: Mr. Secretary, as you're well aware, there's a bit of a internal beltway narrative about the preeminence of strategy and how the budget should not be allowed to drive strategy. You addressed this very forthrightly yesterday at Ft. Bragg. To paraphrase you if I could, you said, yes, strategy's important. But to ignore the budget implications is naïve.
I'm just curious; even if you can't give us the details of your views of the skimmer, is it going to be a tool to force some changes on the Pentagon and the military so that at the end of the day, something is newer and better?
Or is it all just managing downward?
And if so, isn't that kind of a bad job? (Laughter.)
SEC. HAGEL: That's some good question. Let me start with the strategy budget question.
I've always believed, Tom, in everything I've ever done, whether it's starting businesses or running businesses or whatever I've done, that you start with a vision of what your company should be or your product should be or what you want to accomplish. And then from that vision has to come a strategy.
How then do you intend to fulfill and accomplish that vision?
And what is it that you want to accomplish?
Connected to that is a budget that allows you the resources to implement. So you can't have any of those pieces without the other. And so it isn't a simple issue of budget versus strategy. Strategy has to come first, obviously. Budget can't come first, because you don't know what you're budgeting. You don't -- you don't know why you need the money.
What are you going to do with it?
So strategy is first. Of course, it is. It's very important. But also budget gives you not only the tools and resources to implement it, but it also sets some boundaries and forces you to prioritize as to how you are going to implement that strategy.
So I don't think they're disconnected.
As to your more fundamental question about what does the skimmer inform, and would the skimmer actually inform a leaner, better, smarter Defense Department?
And my answer to that is wise management always is able to produce something better. And I don't know of an institution that I've ever been associated with that doesn't require constant review and evaluation and accountability of can you do it better. Times change. Markets change. Products change. And this institution in many ways is no different.
Challenges change. Let's just start with challenges. And you heard me talk this morning about cyber and I talked about it at most of our stops. I mean, that's essentially a new kind of challenge, new in the sense of certainly over the last 10 years.
The nuclear threat is still a real threat. It's probably, in many ways, more of a threat because of the renegade countries like North Korea. But cyber represents but one example of what I'm talking about. So we're going to have to frame a strategy. How do we protect our country? Because that is the bottom line. That is the objective. Secure your country, protect your country, protect your interests.
And how we do that with new capabilities, because the world is changing, so I believe that out of the review and what will come as a result of whatever is ahead, we can do things better. We'll have to do things better, more efficiently, more effectively, smarter.
And that is accompanied with pain. I get that. If I as secretary of defense had other options to do this, other than doing it or some of it through being forced by $37 billion and maybe $52 billion cuts, I would offer another option, believe me. And that's just all part of it.
But we don't have any choice here, Tom. Our responsibility is the safety and security of this country. We will do that. We can do that. Will we be doing that with less resources? Yes. We're doing that now with less resources.
But at the same time, we're winding down from two long wars that have committed huge numbers of resources. Huge. We've already wound down from one; we're winding down from the longest we've ever been in.
And so adjustments need to be made. This isn't the first time this has ever happened. In our history, we've had to go through this three or four times since World War II. The difference now is more uncertainty and the reality that we're facing a steeper, deeper, more abrupt cut than probably ever before.
Q: Mr. Secretary, relating to your scope (inaudible) national security as well, local issue, (inaudible) as far as positioning ships along the eastern seaboard. Can you discuss that as far as (inaudible) plan?
SEC. HAGEL: Sure.
Q: (inaudible)?
SEC. HAGEL: Well, you're going to be doing fine. The carrier is not going to show up next week. But you all know that, but you've got three big amphibious boats coming in here pretty soon and this is a vital part of our national security structure.
And it's going to remain that.
To your bigger question, Eastern Seaboard ships of course, we've had to look at everything. We've had to look at our planes, our intelligence, our ships, our forward presence, our Army, our Marines, where do you put them, why do you put them, prioritizing our interests, commitment to allies, enabling allies more and more to do more and more, where we can provide a training and assistance so we don't have to do it.
Yes, so all those are components of the larger strategy.
Q: Question on Afghanistan: I want to know, I mean, in the last couple of weeks there's been reports that zero option -- and in the sense that no U.S. troops will be left behind in Afghanistan is a serious option that's being considered by the White House and the president? So in that context, one, in the review you just described, the sobering review that you've ordered, is leaving no troops in Afghanistan a part of that option that you're considered?
And number two, are you and your military commanders, are you comfortable with the idea of the zero option leaving no troops in Afghanistan?
SEC. HAGEL: Let's start with -- you all know the range of options that were presented to the president early on. That was an option. So that's not new, zero option. That was part of the entire option of 12,000-plus all the way down to zero option.
I said at the NATO ministerial in June, I think, and committed this on behalf of the president, that we were continuing to evaluate the range of options which then Secretary Panetta presented at the NATO ministerial in January, between 9,000 and 12,000.
And that's where we are.
Yes?
Q: I think that would be 8,000-12,000 U.S. and NATO.
SEC. HAGEL: Yes, of the -- of the total, which is as -- even you look perplexed at that. That's what's been on the table.
(CROSSTALK)
Q: To my second question, sir, is that zero option part of the strategy, strategic review that you've just completed?
SEC. HAGEL: No, no. The strategic review was not about strategies or options for Afghanistan.
Yes. Thank you.
Q: And final question.
No, sorry; my apologies (inaudible).
SEC. HAGEL: Yes, TV gets a shot here. (inaudible). George is very biased against all (inaudible).
Q: (inaudible) trouble (inaudible).
Q: Sir, if sequestration remains in effect for 2014, what are possible consequences that NAS Jacksonville and NAS Mayport specifically may face?
The (inaudible)?
SEC. HAGEL: Well, as I said this morning, and I think generally responded here, if we have to take a $52 billion additional reduction next year, it's going to affect every base, every service, every installation. But as I've also just said, this institution, naval air station here and the entire complex is a very significant part of our overall national security structure.
But everybody will be affected, everywhere.
Yes?
(CROSSTALK)
SEC. HAGEL: Now George is OK (inaudible).
Q: (inaudible) today (inaudible) we have 27 right here at our base. And I got an email from one of them, who said that he wasn't invited to be a part of it today. And he's pretty upset about that.
What do you say them?
SEC. HAGEL: Well, first, as far as I'm concerned, everyone could have been invited, should have been invited.
I don't know who invited people; I don't know if it was a matter of space or what. It doesn't make any difference to me whether there's 100 or 2,700, I say the same things and so I'm sorry about that, that if people didn't get invited and they wanted to be invited, I don't know how people were invited.
I don't think it was a matter of whether they agreed with me or not because I've got some pretty direct questions. So I'm sorry about that.
But I don't know. I don't know if that was a local decision on -- based on space or what it was. I do know that civilian employees who had been furloughed, whether they were there or not there, they're going through the same pain. And I would say the same thing to this person if they were standing where you are as I said this morning. I'm sorry.
Back to the question this gentleman asked that I really didn't answer. I don't like to come out and tell people that they're going to lose 20 percent of their pay. I said this morning and I've said every time -- and I said it the day that we announced the furloughs in Washington, I went out and addressed hundreds of people, civilians, in a facility outside the Pentagon.
And I told them, I -- it's the last thing that I wanted to happen. And I -- and I have some appreciation for the pain. I don't like that. I -- there's nothing good about that. But at the same time, I can't not come out and talk to them and address them and let them ask questions. I know they're upset. I know they're angry. I know they're not happy with me. I made the decision.
But they deserve at least an explanation as to why I made that decision. And I told them I hope we can do better. But I'm in a situation that we're all in and I've got to deal with what I've got to deal with and I'm sorry that they didn't get invited.
STAFF: Thank you, everyone. Appreciate it.
SEC. HAGEL: OK. Thank you.
(CROSSTALK)
Q: When was the last time you were here?
SEC. HAGEL: Five years ago. Yes. (inaudible).
Q: (inaudible) book?
SEC. HAGEL: I'm sorry?
Q: (inaudible)?
-END-
Presenter: Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel July 16, 2013
Media Roundtable with Secretary Hagel at Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Florida
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE CHUCK HAGEL: I've seen these guys before.
So, good afternoon. Thank you for giving me some time. Since these traveling partners have been hearing what I've been saying, let me take just a minute to address all of you but in particular you on this side of the table to first let you know that I'm here today as a result of the three-day trip I'm taking. Visiting bases, stations here on -- on the Southeastern part of the United States.
I'm doing that for two reasons. One to just get a sense of what our people are thinking, how they're feeling. This is a difficult time that we're going through. It's difficult for our people. I wanted to listen to them, and I wanted them to have an opportunity to see me directly and hear from me, ask me questions. And I've always thought that any of us who have the privilege of serving in leadership positions always have a primary responsibility to deal directly with the people we lead no matter how big the problem is or how difficult it is. So they deserve that. They need to see me and hear from me.
Third, it's always very helpful for me or I think anyone who serves in any of these jobs to get better informed on what the issues are, what we're doing, how we're doing it, what the problems are for our people. I will never, ever know enough about this job. But I'm trying to learn everything I can about this job. And when I can arrange it to break out of Washington to come visit our people and see our facilities and understand better what they're doing, I do it. It's very helpful for me to get a better sense of this.
I was in Colorado a couple of weeks ago, visiting our bases out there and NORAD, NORTHCOM, Fort Carson. Was in Omaha three weeks before that for a day. And I'll continue to make these trips around the country. We'll have more planned this summer.
So that's why I'm here. Glad to be here. I've always liked Jacksonville for a lot of reasons. It reminds me much of Omaha. Not that Omaha has as much water, but we are on the Missouri River. But it's a community that clearly reflects years and years of very good, solid, effective community leadership, political leadership, military leadership, business leadership, educational leadership, union leadership, religious leadership. Every component that makes a successful community successful. You've done it here in Jacksonville, and it shows. And that's why it's always reminded me of Omaha. The same components, same kind of fabric.
I had some time with your mayor this morning. Spent some time with him. And then an opportunity a couple of hours ago to see three of your congressmen who represent this area. Spent a little time with them. And then had a chance to see Jesse Jackson this morning as an additional part of the meeting and addressed one of the groups that was having a convention there at the -- transportation group at the hotel.
So that's what I'm doing, why I'm here. And be glad to respond to questions. What I'll do, I guess, since I'm the ringmaster, just go back and forth. Is that the way to do it?
STAFF: (inaudible)
SEC. HAGEL: OK, we'll start with Associated Press and then come back and forth.
Q: Thanks. You talked a lot about priorities today. We've heard from some people who are very anxious about their job situation. Can you explain the thinking behind the Air Force's decision that was announced yesterday to reshuffle some of the funding to allow some of the combat jets to start flying? It seems like they got around some of the sequestration intent in doing that.
And also, you discussed today a 20 percent personnel cut that your office and General Dempsey's office is taking. Is that already in place, and how much money do you expect to save?
SEC. HAGEL: Well, let's start with the second question. We will be rolling out and announcing more formally the specifics of these reductions that came as a result of the review that I had directed. It will -- the component that I referenced this morning in answer to a question would represent a 20 percent cut in the office of the secretary of defense, 20 percent of the joint staff, and a 20 percent cut in the service chief's headquarters' staff. And we'll roll that out and give you more specifics.
It would be for the 2015-2019 period. As you know, the next budget that we will present is the 2015 budget. That is essentially what we'll be doing.
On your first question, the Air Force's decisions, those were -- and I haven't seen all of the specifics. I knew that they were going to make that decision. These are, I understand, readiness training missions. All of the -- all the cancellations of air shows and Blue Angels and all that, that all stays in place. These are readiness training missions.
And I wouldn't describe it as getting around sequestration. It's -- I mean, you heard me say readiness is something that was a priority for all of us as we were going through this process, to protect readiness in every way we could. As you know, we've had 16 squadrons stand down. So, the Air Force is taking a pretty big hit on standing down a lot of their squadrons here. So as we adjust the numbers and get more familiar with what we have here as we close out 2013 -- we're two-and-a-half months away from 2013 -- then the services have the flexibility, which I have noted in previous conversations this morning and other places. I want them to have their own flexibility to use those funds to focus first always on readiness. And that's part of the Air Force decision, as well.
Q: But nothing has changed in terms of current events or other things that might require this --
SEC. HAGEL: Oh, oh, you mean some world event or something with --
Q: (inaudible)
SEC. HAGEL: No, no, no, not at all. Unless you know something that I don't know. (Laughter.)
Yes?
Q: You talked (inaudible) town hall meeting. We've talked to these people. Same thing that goes that may force (inaudible). These people seem very worried about their future. Not just sequestration, but there's other stuff. What do you tell these people that eventually it's going to get better?
SEC. HAGEL: Well, I don't know if you were there. You were there -- some of you, I think, were there this morning. I don't know if you were.
To answer your question, one of the things I led with is uncertainty. And uncertainty is a tremendous enemy for all of us for obvious reasons. And when people are living in a state of uncertainty, when these young professionals with families are not sure about their future, that impacts their concentration. That impacts their job. That impacts everything. And what will then follow, if they aren't sure about their future and whether they'll have a job and what kind of a job.
Then the next step there is for people to start looking for other work and other options. And I addressed this yesterday, and I addressed it this morning that I'm very concerned about that. That will produce a loss of skill sets that are vital to our national security and our readiness. I know that. I understand that.
What could I tell them? Well, I always lead by saying I'm going to tell you the truth. I'm not going to give you any false hope, and I was very honest with them. We're going to have the furlough, as everybody knows, situation until the end of 2013. 2013 is over. 2014 begins October 1. If sequestration continues, which as you all know is the law of the land, that probably we'd see that kick in January 1, that $52 billion cut for the rest of 2014.
So yes, there's uncertainty. Yes there's anxiety. Yes, there are legitimate questions. And that's part of the overall problem that we're dealing with. Do I think it's going to get better? As I said, I have to lead this institution not based on what I think, what I hope, what I believe, may be. I've got to prepare this institution and our people for the facts of life and the reality as it is and the law that is now in place. Would something change to change that? Maybe. Hopefully. But I'm not going to mislead any of our people and give them any false hope here that that's going to happen.
Q: We've had a number of conversations (inaudible). I was wondering if you could tell us anything about the nature of the (inaudible) or is there (inaudible) things will get worse? I'm just trying to understand the nature of (inaudible). And, if you have anything on North Korea.
SEC. HAGEL: On North Korea, I don't have anything further than probably what you all have. Essentially what you have is what I have. I've seen your reports this morning; I got your reports an hour ago on this. I don't have anything really further to tell you. The Panamanians did the right thing. We appreciate the action they took. It's now being investigated and sorting out really what was going on and where cargo -- I've not seen verification of that cargo, but where the cargo -- whatever it was was headed and those kinds of questions. And we'll get those facts. But I don't have anything beyond that.
As to my conversations with Minister al-Sisi, yes, I've had probably 10 conversations with him in the last week. Spoke as recently as Friday night. You all know that I can't talk about those private conversations. Not just me, but in all of our governments' leaders conversations, we have encouraged publicly and privately the leaders of Egypt, including the interim president, interim vice president, prime minister in particular, to be inclusive, to bring all political parties in, to allow them to participate in the writing of the constitution and the elections. It's the only way it will work. We've been very clear on that; not just privately but publicly.
As you all know, Secretary Kerry's going to be in Jordan, I think, within hours to meet with Middle Eastern leaders. And also as you know, Deputy Secretary Burns was just there. I think he's left now, but he met with Minister al-Sisi as well as other leaders.
It's a dangerous situation, and we're encouraging the leadership there to do everything it can to stop the violence on all sides, to be inclusive as they proceed. And I think that's about all I can tell you. Thank you.
Q: Have you seen any loss of productivity or efficiency in your tours of civilian operations? And have you heard from any of those civilians saying, "I can't take this and the future that's coming? I'm going private now?"
SEC. HAGEL: Well, I've not heard any civilian say it as directly as you just said it to me. They may have said it to others and certainly I suspect that there are many thoughts in that direction.
As to have I seen any downturn in efficiency effectiveness at our plants, where I would start in answering that, when you're furloughing people one day a week, that's going to have an impact. It can't but help have an impact. I do know, because I've been told this by a number of our civilian employees -- because I have both uniform leadership and civilian leadership -- that the main concern that has been registered by many of our civilians who are being furloughed is their concern about the quality of their work and the job in which you just mentioned.
Of course, they're concerned about their pay, and of course they're concerned about what this is doing to their families. So we do know that this is going to have an impact. I've said it, others have said it on every component.
Q: Because as soon as the handwriting on the wall occurred in the newspaper business, we started laying off people. Others started leaving on their own to find a more secure future.
SEC. HAGEL: Mm-hmm. Well, you're right.
Q: Mr. Secretary, last week in your letter to Senator Levin, you encouraged lawmakers to, among other things, lift the restrictions that have forced the Pentagon to slow the reduction of the Army and the Marine Corps, the end strength numbers. I'm wondering at this point in your assessment of the situation, do you think it's inevitable that active duty force levels are going to go below the current targets? And specifically, if you could talk about your strategic review that's been on your desk for a couple of weeks? What do those scenarios -- what kind of impact will those scenarios have on active duty force levels?
SEC. HAGEL: Well, you all know that reductions that are now in place on active duty -- I mentioned a couple of them this morning Marines and Army. And the chiefs, all of our uniformed leaders are in the process of moving those down, hit those targets in 2017, 2019 and so on. If sequestrations continues and we go into 2014, we're subject to a $52 billion cut, this is, as I have said, it's going to affect everything. There's no component of our force structure or civilians, any part of our defense department that will not be affected.
So, your question about do you envision coming down, for example, in the Army below 490,000, these are realities that we may be faced with. But again, I would say the uncertainty of not knowing puts us in a position, and part of the review -- the major objective was to prepare for these eventual not just possibilities but probabilities.
When I asked in that review to look at scenarios for a continuation of sequestration, we know what the 2014 budget planning is because we prepared that. We presented that. We planned for that. And then something in between, if there would be a new budget agreement somewhere between sequestration and where the president's 2014 budget comes out.
Q: (inaudible).
SEC. HAGEL: Yes --
Q: -- $37 billion in sequestration level cuts between March and September of this year, (inaudible).
SEC. HAGEL: Yes. I think we did -- that number got early (inaudible) 42 billion thrown out. But I think the real number now that we're living this is 37.
Q: (inaudible) reaction because you've been, you know, going over the speech with different civilian (inaudible) for the last couple of days. Can you describe how you feel when you're standing up there talking about this? The other part I want to know your conversations with the president about these upcoming , the $52 billion. Describe those conversations.
SEC. HAGEL: Yes.
Q: -- compensation and (inaudible) talking about (inaudible)?
SEC. HAGEL: Well, as I think I noted -- and it's been out in the press -- that the deputy secretary of defense, Ash Carter and General Dempsey, who I asked to lead the review, and I and the comptroller, Bob Hale, and essentially the technician of the effort that was made, Christine Fox, the five of us -- and also the vice chief, Admiral Winnefeld, we briefed the president last week in that meeting where his OMB director, his national security adviser, his chief of staff and other senior members.
We got into a very specific presentation, conversation, give-and-take with the president. And it was a sobering meeting and we had been -- Chairman Dempsey and I, over the last few weeks, talking to the president every week about progress and giving him some sense of this.
Prior to that briefing, the new national security adviser, Ambassador Rice, came over to the Pentagon, spent some time with me on this. And then she spent the next day some time with Chairman Dempsey and his people on this, getting familiar with numbers and the broader sense of impact.
Then the next day, she spent some time with Ash Carter and Christine Fox and Bob Hale going into more of the specific numbers. The chief of staff to the president, Denis McDonough, came to the Pentagon a couple of weeks ago, and we gave him about an hour briefing.
So I tell you this because it gives you some sense that the president and his senior staff have been informed as we go along, the OMB director has been given reports on this by Ash Carter almost every other day.
And so the president wasn't receiving something he wasn't prepared for. He had gotten read-ahead material as well.
So that's how it all occurred, the specifics of it were, as you would expect, we gave him not just top-line numbers, but also consequences and options.
The President of the United States can never be surprised. And General Dempsey and I are committed to that, not surprising our commander in chief. That means also that his national security adviser can't be surprised, and his chief of staff can't be surprised and his national counterterrorism chief cannot be surprised. The OMB director can't be surprised.
So I think we've done a good job of bringing everybody along here on this. I don't want to go beyond that into the conversation I had with the president. But he understands this clearly.
Q: Mr. Secretary, as you're well aware, there's a bit of a internal beltway narrative about the preeminence of strategy and how the budget should not be allowed to drive strategy. You addressed this very forthrightly yesterday at Ft. Bragg. To paraphrase you if I could, you said, yes, strategy's important. But to ignore the budget implications is naïve.
I'm just curious; even if you can't give us the details of your views of the skimmer, is it going to be a tool to force some changes on the Pentagon and the military so that at the end of the day, something is newer and better?
Or is it all just managing downward?
And if so, isn't that kind of a bad job? (Laughter.)
SEC. HAGEL: That's some good question. Let me start with the strategy budget question.
I've always believed, Tom, in everything I've ever done, whether it's starting businesses or running businesses or whatever I've done, that you start with a vision of what your company should be or your product should be or what you want to accomplish. And then from that vision has to come a strategy.
How then do you intend to fulfill and accomplish that vision?
And what is it that you want to accomplish?
Connected to that is a budget that allows you the resources to implement. So you can't have any of those pieces without the other. And so it isn't a simple issue of budget versus strategy. Strategy has to come first, obviously. Budget can't come first, because you don't know what you're budgeting. You don't -- you don't know why you need the money.
What are you going to do with it?
So strategy is first. Of course, it is. It's very important. But also budget gives you not only the tools and resources to implement it, but it also sets some boundaries and forces you to prioritize as to how you are going to implement that strategy.
So I don't think they're disconnected.
As to your more fundamental question about what does the skimmer inform, and would the skimmer actually inform a leaner, better, smarter Defense Department?
And my answer to that is wise management always is able to produce something better. And I don't know of an institution that I've ever been associated with that doesn't require constant review and evaluation and accountability of can you do it better. Times change. Markets change. Products change. And this institution in many ways is no different.
Challenges change. Let's just start with challenges. And you heard me talk this morning about cyber and I talked about it at most of our stops. I mean, that's essentially a new kind of challenge, new in the sense of certainly over the last 10 years.
The nuclear threat is still a real threat. It's probably, in many ways, more of a threat because of the renegade countries like North Korea. But cyber represents but one example of what I'm talking about. So we're going to have to frame a strategy. How do we protect our country? Because that is the bottom line. That is the objective. Secure your country, protect your country, protect your interests.
And how we do that with new capabilities, because the world is changing, so I believe that out of the review and what will come as a result of whatever is ahead, we can do things better. We'll have to do things better, more efficiently, more effectively, smarter.
And that is accompanied with pain. I get that. If I as secretary of defense had other options to do this, other than doing it or some of it through being forced by $37 billion and maybe $52 billion cuts, I would offer another option, believe me. And that's just all part of it.
But we don't have any choice here, Tom. Our responsibility is the safety and security of this country. We will do that. We can do that. Will we be doing that with less resources? Yes. We're doing that now with less resources.
But at the same time, we're winding down from two long wars that have committed huge numbers of resources. Huge. We've already wound down from one; we're winding down from the longest we've ever been in.
And so adjustments need to be made. This isn't the first time this has ever happened. In our history, we've had to go through this three or four times since World War II. The difference now is more uncertainty and the reality that we're facing a steeper, deeper, more abrupt cut than probably ever before.
Q: Mr. Secretary, relating to your scope (inaudible) national security as well, local issue, (inaudible) as far as positioning ships along the eastern seaboard. Can you discuss that as far as (inaudible) plan?
SEC. HAGEL: Sure.
Q: (inaudible)?
SEC. HAGEL: Well, you're going to be doing fine. The carrier is not going to show up next week. But you all know that, but you've got three big amphibious boats coming in here pretty soon and this is a vital part of our national security structure.
And it's going to remain that.
To your bigger question, Eastern Seaboard ships of course, we've had to look at everything. We've had to look at our planes, our intelligence, our ships, our forward presence, our Army, our Marines, where do you put them, why do you put them, prioritizing our interests, commitment to allies, enabling allies more and more to do more and more, where we can provide a training and assistance so we don't have to do it.
Yes, so all those are components of the larger strategy.
Q: Question on Afghanistan: I want to know, I mean, in the last couple of weeks there's been reports that zero option -- and in the sense that no U.S. troops will be left behind in Afghanistan is a serious option that's being considered by the White House and the president? So in that context, one, in the review you just described, the sobering review that you've ordered, is leaving no troops in Afghanistan a part of that option that you're considered?
And number two, are you and your military commanders, are you comfortable with the idea of the zero option leaving no troops in Afghanistan?
SEC. HAGEL: Let's start with -- you all know the range of options that were presented to the president early on. That was an option. So that's not new, zero option. That was part of the entire option of 12,000-plus all the way down to zero option.
I said at the NATO ministerial in June, I think, and committed this on behalf of the president, that we were continuing to evaluate the range of options which then Secretary Panetta presented at the NATO ministerial in January, between 9,000 and 12,000.
And that's where we are.
Yes?
Q: I think that would be 8,000-12,000 U.S. and NATO.
SEC. HAGEL: Yes, of the -- of the total, which is as -- even you look perplexed at that. That's what's been on the table.
(CROSSTALK)
Q: To my second question, sir, is that zero option part of the strategy, strategic review that you've just completed?
SEC. HAGEL: No, no. The strategic review was not about strategies or options for Afghanistan.
Yes. Thank you.
Q: And final question.
No, sorry; my apologies (inaudible).
SEC. HAGEL: Yes, TV gets a shot here. (inaudible). George is very biased against all (inaudible).
Q: (inaudible) trouble (inaudible).
Q: Sir, if sequestration remains in effect for 2014, what are possible consequences that NAS Jacksonville and NAS Mayport specifically may face?
The (inaudible)?
SEC. HAGEL: Well, as I said this morning, and I think generally responded here, if we have to take a $52 billion additional reduction next year, it's going to affect every base, every service, every installation. But as I've also just said, this institution, naval air station here and the entire complex is a very significant part of our overall national security structure.
But everybody will be affected, everywhere.
Yes?
(CROSSTALK)
SEC. HAGEL: Now George is OK (inaudible).
Q: (inaudible) today (inaudible) we have 27 right here at our base. And I got an email from one of them, who said that he wasn't invited to be a part of it today. And he's pretty upset about that.
What do you say them?
SEC. HAGEL: Well, first, as far as I'm concerned, everyone could have been invited, should have been invited.
I don't know who invited people; I don't know if it was a matter of space or what. It doesn't make any difference to me whether there's 100 or 2,700, I say the same things and so I'm sorry about that, that if people didn't get invited and they wanted to be invited, I don't know how people were invited.
I don't think it was a matter of whether they agreed with me or not because I've got some pretty direct questions. So I'm sorry about that.
But I don't know. I don't know if that was a local decision on -- based on space or what it was. I do know that civilian employees who had been furloughed, whether they were there or not there, they're going through the same pain. And I would say the same thing to this person if they were standing where you are as I said this morning. I'm sorry.
Back to the question this gentleman asked that I really didn't answer. I don't like to come out and tell people that they're going to lose 20 percent of their pay. I said this morning and I've said every time -- and I said it the day that we announced the furloughs in Washington, I went out and addressed hundreds of people, civilians, in a facility outside the Pentagon.
And I told them, I -- it's the last thing that I wanted to happen. And I -- and I have some appreciation for the pain. I don't like that. I -- there's nothing good about that. But at the same time, I can't not come out and talk to them and address them and let them ask questions. I know they're upset. I know they're angry. I know they're not happy with me. I made the decision.
But they deserve at least an explanation as to why I made that decision. And I told them I hope we can do better. But I'm in a situation that we're all in and I've got to deal with what I've got to deal with and I'm sorry that they didn't get invited.
STAFF: Thank you, everyone. Appreciate it.
SEC. HAGEL: OK. Thank you.
(CROSSTALK)
Q: When was the last time you were here?
SEC. HAGEL: Five years ago. Yes. (inaudible).
Q: (inaudible) book?
SEC. HAGEL: I'm sorry?
Q: (inaudible)?
-END-
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
CUTS ANNOUNCED FOR PENTAGON STAFF
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Hagel Announces Cuts to Headquarters Staffs
By John Valceanu
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, July 17, 2013 - Pentagon leaders will reduce their staffs by 20 percent as the Defense Department works to craft a strategy-based spending plan that accounts for likely future spending cuts, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said yesterday.
Speaking to reporters at Naval Air Station Jacksonville in Florida during a three-day visit to military installations in the Southeast, Hagel said his office and those of the chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff and the service chiefs will cut headquarters staffs by one-fifth from 2015 to 2019.
Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said in a written statement yesterday that total savings from the reduced staffing could reach $1.5-2 billion.
"Secretary Hagel's announcement is based on the work of the Strategic Choices and Management Review, which scrutinized the department's spending priorities and determined that these headquarters reductions should be pursued now, regardless of future fiscal circumstances," Little said. "These cuts will be implemented even if Congress lifts sequester-level budget caps."
In meetings with service members and civilians throughout his travels this week, the secretary has stressed that defense leaders are planning for the full range of sequester cuts that could total $500 billion in defense spending reductions over a decade.
"Uncertainty is a tremendous enemy for all of us, for obvious reasons," Hagel said. "I've got to prepare this institution and our people for the facts of life and the reality as it is and the law that is now in place."
Hagel said his major objective for the review the department conducted earlier this year was to prepare for probable future cuts. In a letter to the Senate last week, the secretary outlined possible force cuts and civilian reductions in force that may ensue if sequester remains in place beyond the current fiscal year.
The secretary noted that reducing defense spending in postwar periods is normal.
"In our history, we've had to go through this three or four times since World War II," Hagel said. "The difference now is more uncertainty and the reality that we're facing a steeper, deeper, more abrupt cut than probably ever before."
Responding to a question about the reaction of defense civilians he's spoken with, many of whom are now furloughed one day per week, Hagel said, "I don't like to come out and tell people that they're going to lose 20 percent of their pay. ... There's nothing good about that."
The secretary added that he feels it's important to explain what led to the furlough decision, and to give employees an opportunity to ask questions.
"And I told them I hope we can do better," Hagel said. "But I'm in a situation that we're all in, and I've got to deal with what I've got to deal with."
Hagel Announces Cuts to Headquarters Staffs
By John Valceanu
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, July 17, 2013 - Pentagon leaders will reduce their staffs by 20 percent as the Defense Department works to craft a strategy-based spending plan that accounts for likely future spending cuts, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said yesterday.
Speaking to reporters at Naval Air Station Jacksonville in Florida during a three-day visit to military installations in the Southeast, Hagel said his office and those of the chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff and the service chiefs will cut headquarters staffs by one-fifth from 2015 to 2019.
Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said in a written statement yesterday that total savings from the reduced staffing could reach $1.5-2 billion.
"Secretary Hagel's announcement is based on the work of the Strategic Choices and Management Review, which scrutinized the department's spending priorities and determined that these headquarters reductions should be pursued now, regardless of future fiscal circumstances," Little said. "These cuts will be implemented even if Congress lifts sequester-level budget caps."
In meetings with service members and civilians throughout his travels this week, the secretary has stressed that defense leaders are planning for the full range of sequester cuts that could total $500 billion in defense spending reductions over a decade.
"Uncertainty is a tremendous enemy for all of us, for obvious reasons," Hagel said. "I've got to prepare this institution and our people for the facts of life and the reality as it is and the law that is now in place."
Hagel said his major objective for the review the department conducted earlier this year was to prepare for probable future cuts. In a letter to the Senate last week, the secretary outlined possible force cuts and civilian reductions in force that may ensue if sequester remains in place beyond the current fiscal year.
The secretary noted that reducing defense spending in postwar periods is normal.
"In our history, we've had to go through this three or four times since World War II," Hagel said. "The difference now is more uncertainty and the reality that we're facing a steeper, deeper, more abrupt cut than probably ever before."
Responding to a question about the reaction of defense civilians he's spoken with, many of whom are now furloughed one day per week, Hagel said, "I don't like to come out and tell people that they're going to lose 20 percent of their pay. ... There's nothing good about that."
The secretary added that he feels it's important to explain what led to the furlough decision, and to give employees an opportunity to ask questions.
"And I told them I hope we can do better," Hagel said. "But I'm in a situation that we're all in, and I've got to deal with what I've got to deal with."
Monday, July 1, 2013
DEFENSE SECRETARY HAGEL ON SEXUAL ASSAULT AND THE INSTITUTIION
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Sexual Assault Solutions Include Everyone, Hagel Says
By Karen Parrish
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 28, 2013 - Sexual assault issues are corrected within the fabric of an institution, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told troops today, "and you're the fabric. And I know you feel the same way."
Hagel visited several military installations in Colorado this week. He said in a response to a soldier's question at a Fort Carson town hall meeting that sexual assault is a scourge on the Defense Department.
Sexual assault is a crime, he said, and U.S. service members have to stop it within their institutions.
"We don't break the law, but we certainly don't assault our own people," Hagel said. "There's no excuse for this. Our standards are higher than that."
Prioritizing sexual assault as an issue, focusing on prevention, establishing accountability and administering effective training is all part of the solution, Hagel said.
"Every one of you -- me, top, bottom, bottom-up -- has the responsibility here," he said. "It isn't going to get fixed just by directive or a training session or a new law being passed. It gets fixed within the fabric of the institution."
Sexual Assault Solutions Include Everyone, Hagel Says
By Karen Parrish
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 28, 2013 - Sexual assault issues are corrected within the fabric of an institution, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told troops today, "and you're the fabric. And I know you feel the same way."
Hagel visited several military installations in Colorado this week. He said in a response to a soldier's question at a Fort Carson town hall meeting that sexual assault is a scourge on the Defense Department.
Sexual assault is a crime, he said, and U.S. service members have to stop it within their institutions.
"We don't break the law, but we certainly don't assault our own people," Hagel said. "There's no excuse for this. Our standards are higher than that."
Prioritizing sexual assault as an issue, focusing on prevention, establishing accountability and administering effective training is all part of the solution, Hagel said.
"Every one of you -- me, top, bottom, bottom-up -- has the responsibility here," he said. "It isn't going to get fixed just by directive or a training session or a new law being passed. It gets fixed within the fabric of the institution."
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
U.S. ACTING AIR FORCE SECRETARY RECOUNTS EXPERIENCE AS GAY MEMBER OF DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Acting Air Force Secretary Recounts Journey to Equality
By Amaani Lyle
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 25, 2013 - During a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month event at the Pentagon today, the highest-ranking openly gay member of the Defense Department described his experiences witnessing the evolution of the law that banned openly gay service members, from its implementation to its eventual repeal.
Acting Air Force Secretary Eric Fanning noted the significance of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel kicking off the DOD's pride celebration, as just two years ago, gay and lesbian service members could not openly serve in the military.
Absent an association like DOD Pride to lend support, Fanning described the difficulties and sense of isolation that he and others at the Pentagon endured as the repeal process ran its course. "There were no other open LGBT appointees, and anyone serving openly in uniform was surely in the process of being discharged," he said.
Fanning began working in the Pentagon 20 years ago, a time he described as a personally painful experience as DOD began to implement the law that came to be known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
"It was a deeply conflicting time for me," the Air Force's top civilian official said. "I was launching a career with strong support from amazing bosses who knew about my personal life. ... I was being given opportunities that were being denied to people just like me. I was working for an institution that discriminated -- against people just like me."
He also recalled how during that time, people spoke about gays and lesbians in "blistering and emotional ways," denigrating them for simply wanting the right to serve their country while being honest about who they were.
Still, Fanning said, the military underwent the difficult process of opening doors to those it previously denied or constrained: women, immigrants looking to prove their patriotism and earn their citizenship, and to gays and lesbians.
"At times, it seemed agonizingly slow, or even that we were losing ground," Fanning said. "But never once did we doubt we were on the right path."
Relying on the diverse talents of a broader pool of people who are willing and able to serve has fortified the military, Fanning explained. "We are stronger for looking more like the society we are charged with protecting, and we are today ... the finest military the world has ever known," he said.
In the two years leading up to the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell," the debate had a remarkably different tone, due in great part to the support of the president and the then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Navy Adm. Mike Mullen.
"I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens," the admiral testified before Congress. "It comes down to integrity -- theirs as individuals and ours as an institution."
Looking back to almost two decades earlier as a junior aide, Fanning said, he could never imagine having a chairman say things like Mullen did.
Fanning said most people had begun to accept the possibility of repeal long before it occurred, though he was fortunate enough to be present when the president signed the historic document.
Among the celebrations and congratulations, he said, many supporters asked what it was like to be in the Pentagon after the repeal.
"I answered honestly, and I think disappointingly, that ... we went back to the building, and in my view, the building had already moved on past the decision and we talked about what we talk about every single day: the budget," he said in a deadpan tone.
Fanning also said he's received a bit of attention since he was nominated to be undersecretary of the Air Force -- not all of it welcome, some quite negative, and some that he described as "rather imaginative."
"Many have speculated as to my agenda, what color I'll paint the planes, what designs I have on the uniforms," he said. But like almost everyone else, he added, he remains focused on simply doing his job, and chiding comments are dwarfed by the outpouring of support he's received in and out of the Pentagon.
"It reminds me that, as important as events like this are for our community, they're also important opportunities for our allies to identify themselves and to let us know they're right alongside us," Fanning said. "Events like this give voice not just to us, but to those who support us."
Acting Air Force Secretary Recounts Journey to Equality
By Amaani Lyle
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 25, 2013 - During a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month event at the Pentagon today, the highest-ranking openly gay member of the Defense Department described his experiences witnessing the evolution of the law that banned openly gay service members, from its implementation to its eventual repeal.
Acting Air Force Secretary Eric Fanning noted the significance of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel kicking off the DOD's pride celebration, as just two years ago, gay and lesbian service members could not openly serve in the military.
Absent an association like DOD Pride to lend support, Fanning described the difficulties and sense of isolation that he and others at the Pentagon endured as the repeal process ran its course. "There were no other open LGBT appointees, and anyone serving openly in uniform was surely in the process of being discharged," he said.
Fanning began working in the Pentagon 20 years ago, a time he described as a personally painful experience as DOD began to implement the law that came to be known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
"It was a deeply conflicting time for me," the Air Force's top civilian official said. "I was launching a career with strong support from amazing bosses who knew about my personal life. ... I was being given opportunities that were being denied to people just like me. I was working for an institution that discriminated -- against people just like me."
He also recalled how during that time, people spoke about gays and lesbians in "blistering and emotional ways," denigrating them for simply wanting the right to serve their country while being honest about who they were.
Still, Fanning said, the military underwent the difficult process of opening doors to those it previously denied or constrained: women, immigrants looking to prove their patriotism and earn their citizenship, and to gays and lesbians.
"At times, it seemed agonizingly slow, or even that we were losing ground," Fanning said. "But never once did we doubt we were on the right path."
Relying on the diverse talents of a broader pool of people who are willing and able to serve has fortified the military, Fanning explained. "We are stronger for looking more like the society we are charged with protecting, and we are today ... the finest military the world has ever known," he said.
In the two years leading up to the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell," the debate had a remarkably different tone, due in great part to the support of the president and the then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Navy Adm. Mike Mullen.
"I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens," the admiral testified before Congress. "It comes down to integrity -- theirs as individuals and ours as an institution."
Looking back to almost two decades earlier as a junior aide, Fanning said, he could never imagine having a chairman say things like Mullen did.
Fanning said most people had begun to accept the possibility of repeal long before it occurred, though he was fortunate enough to be present when the president signed the historic document.
Among the celebrations and congratulations, he said, many supporters asked what it was like to be in the Pentagon after the repeal.
"I answered honestly, and I think disappointingly, that ... we went back to the building, and in my view, the building had already moved on past the decision and we talked about what we talk about every single day: the budget," he said in a deadpan tone.
Fanning also said he's received a bit of attention since he was nominated to be undersecretary of the Air Force -- not all of it welcome, some quite negative, and some that he described as "rather imaginative."
"Many have speculated as to my agenda, what color I'll paint the planes, what designs I have on the uniforms," he said. But like almost everyone else, he added, he remains focused on simply doing his job, and chiding comments are dwarfed by the outpouring of support he's received in and out of the Pentagon.
"It reminds me that, as important as events like this are for our community, they're also important opportunities for our allies to identify themselves and to let us know they're right alongside us," Fanning said. "Events like this give voice not just to us, but to those who support us."
Saturday, June 15, 2013
U.S. AND ISRAELI DEFENSE LEADERS MEET
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Hagel Meets With Israeli Defense Minister at Pentagon
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 14, 2013 - Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel welcomed Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon to the Pentagon today during Yaalon's first official visit to Washington since taking office earlier this spring, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said.
Yaalon arrived aboard a MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft from Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va.
Hagel announced in April that the United States would make the V-22 available to Israel "as part of an unprecedented package of advance military capabilities that will increase Israel's qualitative military edge," Little said. At Quantico, he added, Yaalon and his delegation experienced some of the Osprey's unique capabilities as Israel plans to incorporate the aircraft into future military planning.
During their meeting, the two defense leaders discussed the today's elections in Iran, the press secretary said in a statement, and reaffirmed that the United States and Israel will continue to work together to counter threats posed by Iran and remain prepared for a range of contingencies.
"Secretary Hagel and Minister Yaalon also discussed the ongoing violence in Syria and condemned the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime," Little said. "Both noted the complexities of the situation and resolved to remain in close contact and continue to share information to support the defense of Israel."
Hagel Meets With Israeli Defense Minister at Pentagon
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 14, 2013 - Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel welcomed Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon to the Pentagon today during Yaalon's first official visit to Washington since taking office earlier this spring, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said.
Yaalon arrived aboard a MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft from Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va.
Hagel announced in April that the United States would make the V-22 available to Israel "as part of an unprecedented package of advance military capabilities that will increase Israel's qualitative military edge," Little said. At Quantico, he added, Yaalon and his delegation experienced some of the Osprey's unique capabilities as Israel plans to incorporate the aircraft into future military planning.
During their meeting, the two defense leaders discussed the today's elections in Iran, the press secretary said in a statement, and reaffirmed that the United States and Israel will continue to work together to counter threats posed by Iran and remain prepared for a range of contingencies.
"Secretary Hagel and Minister Yaalon also discussed the ongoing violence in Syria and condemned the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime," Little said. "Both noted the complexities of the situation and resolved to remain in close contact and continue to share information to support the defense of Israel."
Monday, April 1, 2013
SECRETARY HAGEL SAYS U.S.-SOUTH KOREA WANT PEACE
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
U.S., South Korea Committed to Peace, Hagel Says
By Claudette Roulo
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, March 28, 2013 - The long-standing relationship with South Korea is particularly important to the United States, especially in light of the recent actions by North Korea, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said today.
At a joint Pentagon press conference with Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Hagel stressed that the United States and its allies are prepared to address any threat to the Asia-Pacific.
"We -- the United States, South Koreans, all of the nations ... in that region of the world -- are committed to a pathway to peace. And the North Koreans seem to be headed in a different direction here," Hagel said.
Joint exercises held earlier this month were intended to assure regional allies "that they can count on us to be prepared and to help them deter conflict," Dempsey said.
On Monday, North Korean media announced that long-range artillery and strategic rocket units were ordered to prepare to deploy to areas near the South Korean border.
"I think their very provocative actions and belligerent tone, it has ratcheted up the danger, and we have to understand that reality," Hagel said.
South Korean Army Gen. Jeong Sung-jo, the chairman of South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff, and U.S. Army Gen. James D. Thurman, the commander of U.S.-Republic of Korea Combined Forces Command, announced March 24 that they had signed a combined plan to counter threats from North Korea.
The chairman noted that, as a commander of a United Nations command, Thurman is responsible for maintaining the armistice between the two Koreas.
"So he has to have not only visibility and transparency, but he has to have influence in the process of managing the potential for conflict on the peninsula," Dempsey said. A result of two years of discussions, the combined counter-provocation plan establishes a framework for how that influence will be handled, he added.
Uncertainty surrounding the intentions of the North Korean government and its president Kim Jong Un is not the primary issue for the region, Hagel said. But, he added, "We have to take seriously every provocative, bellicose word and action that this new, young leader has taken so far since he's come to power."
North Korea's leaders have a history of ratcheting up tensions in the region to create more favorable conditions for the country, Hagel said. Whether or not that is currently the case, he added, the United States still has to be prepared to respond to contingencies in the region.
"But the fact is that this is the wrong way to go," Hagel said. "The action that he's taken and the actions they've taken and the words he's used, it is not going to project a more responsible, accountable relationship."
U.S., South Korea Committed to Peace, Hagel Says
By Claudette Roulo
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, March 28, 2013 - The long-standing relationship with South Korea is particularly important to the United States, especially in light of the recent actions by North Korea, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said today.
At a joint Pentagon press conference with Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Hagel stressed that the United States and its allies are prepared to address any threat to the Asia-Pacific.
"We -- the United States, South Koreans, all of the nations ... in that region of the world -- are committed to a pathway to peace. And the North Koreans seem to be headed in a different direction here," Hagel said.
Joint exercises held earlier this month were intended to assure regional allies "that they can count on us to be prepared and to help them deter conflict," Dempsey said.
On Monday, North Korean media announced that long-range artillery and strategic rocket units were ordered to prepare to deploy to areas near the South Korean border.
"I think their very provocative actions and belligerent tone, it has ratcheted up the danger, and we have to understand that reality," Hagel said.
South Korean Army Gen. Jeong Sung-jo, the chairman of South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff, and U.S. Army Gen. James D. Thurman, the commander of U.S.-Republic of Korea Combined Forces Command, announced March 24 that they had signed a combined plan to counter threats from North Korea.
The chairman noted that, as a commander of a United Nations command, Thurman is responsible for maintaining the armistice between the two Koreas.
"So he has to have not only visibility and transparency, but he has to have influence in the process of managing the potential for conflict on the peninsula," Dempsey said. A result of two years of discussions, the combined counter-provocation plan establishes a framework for how that influence will be handled, he added.
Uncertainty surrounding the intentions of the North Korean government and its president Kim Jong Un is not the primary issue for the region, Hagel said. But, he added, "We have to take seriously every provocative, bellicose word and action that this new, young leader has taken so far since he's come to power."
North Korea's leaders have a history of ratcheting up tensions in the region to create more favorable conditions for the country, Hagel said. Whether or not that is currently the case, he added, the United States still has to be prepared to respond to contingencies in the region.
"But the fact is that this is the wrong way to go," Hagel said. "The action that he's taken and the actions they've taken and the words he's used, it is not going to project a more responsible, accountable relationship."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)