2006 Lecture

The Honorable Thelma Drake, Congresswoman
Second Congressional District of Virginia
U.S. House of Representatives

Thank you, General Quinlan, for that introduction and for the opportunity to be here today and share some of my views on what I believe is the most important issue we face today: our global struggle against terror.

I am honored to follow in the footsteps of such stalwarts as my good friend and colleague Congressman Ike Skelton, General Anthony Zinni and Admiral Joseph Prueher. I want to congratulate the 2006 Hall of Fame Inductees. I also want to thank each and every one here for their service and sacrifice in the name of freedom and liberty.

• First, the enemy we are facing now is vastly different than the enemy we have faced in the past.
• And second, the American people need a reminder that we are indeed a nation at war and that they have an important role to play.

America’s security and peace itself is being threatened by various elements in the world. In North Korea, Kim Jong-Il’s seemingly irrational decision to show the world his military might by blindly launching a Taep’o-dong-2 intercontinental ballistic missile at a target yet to be determined – even by the North Koreans themselves – is one threat.

China’s recent military buildup is also a cause for concern. Over the last decade, their naval strength has grown exponentially, highlighted by advancements in their submarine fleet, which has grown by approximately sixteen boats in the last two years alone. Additionally, Beijing has clearly made significant steps toward securing energy resources around the world to support growing energy needs within China and its military.

As we continue to build and develop strategic partnerships throughout the Western Pacific, all eyes are on China and world leaders question whether that nation can be contained militarily.

While the military buildup in China and the possible intercontinental threat by the Kim Jong-Il regime carry with them the imminent risk of destabilization in North East Asia, both situations possess the common denominator of being comprised of primarily, and therefore easily detected, conventional and missile forces.

As demonstrated by the Quadrennial Defense Review and by the House Armed Services Committee’s own Defense Review, we have begun a shift of assets to the Pacific to address the threats posed by China and North Korea and position ourselves to be able to quickly respond to a crisis.

Iran, on the other hand, is creating instability in the Middle East with its nuclear programs. The threats posed to the United States and its allies, particularly Israel, is very real.

Iran and Syria’s providing Hezbollah with rockets and missiles demonstrate that they are now willing to provide weapons with greater reach to terrorists’ organizations. They have begun the slide down the slippery slope to providing more powerful and more deadly weapons, even weapons of mass destruction, to jihadist organizations that are exempt from treaties, government accountability, UN resolutions and other international rules of engagement.

These Jihadist organizations are the third and, I would consider the most difficult, threat we face.

Terrorists have the ability to coordinate resources and strike at a time of their choosing with little or no warning. They are quick, agile and deadly.

They have the ability to conceal their operations by blending in with the civilian population and using women and children as their camouflage.

Generally, their movements do not show up on any radar, and they are next to impossible to track using satellite or most other high-tech means.

Regardless of their ability to project force or to actually gain territory for political or military advantage or dominance as a result of their actions, their ideology compels them to continue to fight, even to the point of themselves becoming a weapon.

So the question that needs to be asked is, “How do we face and defeat the menacing threat of terrorism, if not through the sheer power of conventional U.S. forces?”

In testimony before the Committee Defense Review panel that I chaired, Major General Robert Scales, a man with whom all of you are no doubt familiar, spoke about the United States’ over-reliance on technology to fight our nation’s conflicts.

While our 5th generation jet fighter will be able to penetrate conventional enemies’ air defenses virtually unseen and create air superiority within hours of engagement, many of the troops they are supporting will be firing the same rifle used in Vietnam. Air superiority is paramount to a successful ground operation and the lack of it could spell disaster.

The war in Iraq is evidence of a conflict in which we quickly established air dominance yet were not fully prepared for the urban, guerilla and unconventional tactics that followed. I have been to Iraq twice and both times I have been astounded by the dedication and professionalism of our all-volunteer military. However, the job they are doing is simply not one for which all of our troops are adequately trained.

The war in Iraq is over. Let me say that again: the war in Iraq is over. Our conventional military soundly defeated Saddam Hussein’s conventional military. Now, we are left to fight the War on Terror in Iraq, a completely different kind of conflict, and one that requires a completely different set of capabilities.

The enemy we face now is not the uniformed soldier of the Iraqi military, but the unconventional, agile and highly mobile terrorist who cannot be defeated by using the same type of tactics employed by our military in fighting conventional forces.

Simply relying on advanced technology, as General Scales suggests we have done, will not yield the kinds of results we seek. Our efforts now must rely on special operations forces, elite commandos highly trained in close quarters combat, adaptable to urban warfare. An enemy that operates in the shadows requires a force prepared to combat it in the shadows.

Consistent with the 2004 Unified Command Plan, which set United States Special Operations Command as the lead element in planning and prosecuting the Global War on Terror, I believe that we need to actively promote and expand our special operations capability.

The addition of a Marine Special Operations Command will alleviate some of the pressures on these forces, which are highly taxed from operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the globe.

However, we must recognize that we are indeed fighting the War on Terror in Iraq and that simply mandating an increase in numbers will not fill this gap. Special operations forces cannot be mass-produced.

Retention bonuses have been proven to work but only address part of the problem - they have slowed the flow of experienced professionals to companies such as Blackwater. Therefore, our efforts must focus on recruitment.

However, in the Navy special warfare community alone, less than a hundredth of 1% of all active duty military try out for the SEALS. The culture of the “silent warrior” sometimes in and of itself creates an impediment to growing this capability. The special operations community needs to do a better job of marketing itself to new recruits.

In order to truly grow this capability, efforts need to focus on explaining to our young soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines the importance of this service. The history of special operations in this country has been dominated by reactions to major events.

The debacle at Desert One demonstrated the need for a coordinated special operations force and led to the creation of the Goldwater-Nichols Act. The attacks on September 11th brought this typically “under the radar” community to the forefront of the debate. I am hopeful that it will not take another incident to force us to seriously look at the size of our special operations community.

The nature of a well-executed terrorist attack is such that due to the size and scale of U.S. conventional forces, it would be near impossible to effectively respond in a timely manner. Therefore, we have to be ready at all times, an undertaking which takes a high level of commitment from the American people.

This is a commitment which sadly, I do not believe the American people completely understand.

While we are fighting the Global War on Terror around the world, we are fighting another war here at home: one that I believe could have even worse consequences were we to lose: a War on Complacency.

On September 11th, our nation was dealt a violent blow, and in the weeks following, the American people responded magnificently. President Bush promised we would be in this for the long-term and that we would lash out against all those who wish to, in Osama bin Laden's own words, kill as many Americans as possible.

However, since that initial period and during my short time in Congress, I have not felt as if this was a nation at war.

This is evidenced by the response from the American media and large pockets of the American people to different issues such as the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, Guantanamo and Iraq.

In his book The McDonaldization of Society, author George Ritzer argues that we have become a society that demands immediate results.

Spurred by developments such as fast-food and the 24-hour news cycle, Americans no are no longer prepared to wait for results. Because many of us refuse to get out of our car in order to purchase a hamburger, it stands to reason that we want our conflicts settled with expediency.

This begs the question, "Do Americans have the stomach to fight the long war?" I believe Americans will support the long war, as long as they are appropriately kept informed.

Terrorists are winning on very few fronts. The one front they soundly defeat our military on is the media front.

Our enemies seek to use our media against us. They understand the value of bending public opinion. They understand information operations and know that the media will cover their actions and that their actions speak louder than words.

Terrorists release photos within minutes of an attack. They are able to drive the media and give them the picture they want.

Terrorists use the media to conduct information operations. In Lebanon, they are quick to demonstrate that Israeli Defense Forces are killing women and children. Israel’s reluctant response to the accusation caused them to lose the battle for world opinion.

The same is true with the American military. Unfortunately, the American military is not as agile to respond to the needs of the media and, therefore, are defeated in the next day’s headlines. The results are a loss of support and resolve in the world and even in America, and greater sympathy for terrorist organizations and antipathy for America among the Arab populace.

They also know that, regardless of how many accomplishments are made by our men and women in Iraq, that the use of Improvised Explosive Devices, a key strategic weapon for the terrorists, will lead the news every time.

In their own words, they understand that a weakened American resolve ultimately led to our pullout of Vietnam, and they will seek to duplicate that anywhere we decide to defend liberty.

I firmly believe we must do a better job of communicating with the American people if we ever expect to keep our national resolve and win the long war.

Last Wednesday, I had an opportunity to sit down with the Virginian Pilot’s Editorial Board. For more than 40 minutes, we discussed the war. Even the editors do not believe that progress is being made in Iraq. But I shared with them the progress that I saw with my own eyes.

My experience has been that when people get the whole story about what our troops are doing in Iraq, their attitudes change. Unfortunately, they are not getting the whole story.

The public affairs element of this war cannot be discounted, but rather should be utilized to the fullest extent possible to ensure the American people and the world understand the whole story of what our service members are doing to defend freedom and democracy around the world.

Over the past 20 months that I have served in Congress, I have heard repeated calls for additional negotiations and diplomacy.

Many of you know I was a real estate agent before coming to Congress. I believe that one should always seek to negotiate from a position of strength, which is the only type of diplomacy the terrorists understand.

Those who call for negotiations and diplomacy instead of direct action fail to understand the resolve or the asymmetry of the enemy we face. They hate Americans despite our policies, not because of them. It is of no consequence to the terrorists whether America engages the Middle East multilaterally or unilaterally. They will keep attacking because we cherish the very thing they despise: freedom.

Withdrawal from our commitments will not be met with peace, as many have argued. It is unfortunate that a growing portion of the American people believes that we should set a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, a statistic that I believe is indicative of complacency.

Our efforts in Iraq have put the terrorists on the defensive. Every American service member’s life is sacred. However, withdrawing from our commitments before completing our mission, as we have unfortunately done in the past, will simply embolden the terrorists and ultimately lead to the deaths of many more Americans and render their deaths in vain.

I strongly believe that our security here at home is directly tied to our actions abroad. Were we to give in to the demands of those who fail to understand the terrorist threat by retreating from the primary front of the War on Terror, allowing the terrorists to re-group, re-equip and re-train, the long-term consequences would be catastrophic.

The threat of terrorism has unfortunately not mandated the sense of urgency from the American people that one would hope for.

This is a failure however, not on the part of the American people, but on the part of our nations’ leadership in explaining the consequences of our failure.

As we talk about winning the hearts and minds of those who have been taught to hate, we must first win the hearts and minds of the American people by demonstrating the importance of our current mission. If we lose the War on Complacency, our enemies will win the War on Terror.

Americans have a choice to make, and recent events, particularly in Lebanon, have proven that this decision cannot be put off any longer. We know that the crisis in the Middle East is being enabled in large part due to Hezbollah’s benefactors in Syria and Iran, two regimes that continue to breed hatred and contempt for all things Western. Consider for a minute if these two regimes were nuclear powers.

Tough decisions will need to be made about Iran’s nuclear enrichment program in light of the United Nations’ impending August 31st deadline. But these decisions need to be made with the full weight of the American people behind them.

You have a role to play. Unfortunately, the message from Washington often gets caught up in political rambling. However, I am reminded of a passage in the Bible – Proverbs, chapter 24, verse 6 – which says “for waging war you need guidance, and for victory many advisers.”

You are those advisors, and as the future of our military leadership, you share the responsibility of educating the American public about the dangers we face as a nation. You are not just the front line in the War on Terror. You are also the front line in the War on Complacency.

President Ronald Reagan, in speaking about America’s future, once said, “No crisis is beyond the capacity of our people to solve; no challenge too great.” The history of our nation is one replete with challenges, and those that were met with the collective strength, will and perseverance of the American people were triumphed over.

As I look to the future, and as I look out on all of you, I have no doubt that our unified efforts will lead us once again to the only acceptable outcome in the Global War on Terror: victory. Thank you.

TOP