Remarks by Secretary Hagel at The Atlantic's Washington Ideas Forum 2014

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE CHUCK HAGEL: Thank you.

 

MR. FALLOWS: Thank you, audience. Thanks especially to Secretary Hagel for joining us here this morning.

 

Let's start off with one bit of news. There's some Ebola order you signed today. Tell us about what's that is and what its significance is.

 

SEC. HAGEL: What I signed this morning was a memorandum to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in response to the memorandum of recommendation I received from the chairman and the chiefs yesterday to go forward with a policy of essentially 21-day incubation for our men and women who would be returning from West Africa.

 

That policy was put in place by the chief of staff of the Army a couple of days ago for General (Darryl) Williams and 10 of his associates who are now back at their base in Italy. And what I said in response this morning was, give me, within 15 days the operational specifics of how that would work. And then I believe we should review that policy within 45 days.

 

The fact is, the military will have more Americans in Liberia than any other department. That's number one. Number two, our people are younger. The cohorts are different. They are not volunteers. And this is also a policy that was discussed in great detail by the communities, by the families of our military men and women. And they very much wanted a safety valve on this.

 

So, that's essentially what the directive says.

 

MR. FALLOWS: Great. Thank you. So that's the news of the day. Let's talk about some broader picture. Steve in his introduction mentioned all the parts of the world where things that are of concern to you and to the U.S. military are blowing up.

 

Could you give us a brief big picture of how dangerous you think this time of history is? Is it chronic annoyance? Or is it actual danger? And when will the United States see some end to these wars, especially the now 13-year war in Iraq-Afghanistan?

 

SEC. HAGEL: Jim, I think we are living through one of these historic, defining times. I think we are seeing a new world order -- post-World War II, post-Soviet Union implosion -- being built. Many questions
about, first among the American people and our leaders, what's the role of America in this new world that is evolving? Should we have a role? What is appropriate?

 

And the inventory of issues that Steve mentioned coming onto the stage with you and your question gives us some snapshot into what we're all dealing with. Each one of these issues, regardless of where they are, affects us now, will continue to affect us into the future.

 

I've said, Chairman Dempsey has said, President Obama has said, Secretary Kerry, others, that what we're seeing in the Middle East with ISIS-ISIL is going to require a steady, long-term effort. It's going to
require coalitions of common interest which we are forming. We have more than 60 countries now with us to deal with this. This is an ideology. This is a dynamic that in total we've never quite seen.

 

Then you look at all the other dimensions -- the rise of China, what Russia has been doing the last six months; pandemic disease, Ebola being an example; budget issues. We've got a Congress that can't work together. I hope that changes after next Tuesday. I don't know. But we need all of our institutions functioning, including the Congress to deal with these great issues. Because they have long-term consequences -- global warming.

 

I mean, every facet that we see out there today is rolling back on us in some way. If we're not paying a price today, we will pay a big price tomorrow.

 

MR. FALLOWS: The secretary has made some really interesting speeches about the role of climate change as a security issue. And we'll come back to that. You mentioned the role of the Congress. It's a unique phenomenon. You, of course, were a very influential senator and there are four former members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- President Obama, Vice President Biden, yourself and Secretary of State Kerry -- who are now in these positions of great executive authority at just the time where there seems to be less congressional involvement in the decision-making, the accountability, and sort of the connection between defense policy and the public than historically has been the case.

 

How should we think about this? Is this a problem?

SEC. HAGEL: Well, in one way, there is not less involvement. But the way I would say it, I think there's less partnership. And partnership is critical here because it isn't a matter of we all have to agree. That's
not the issue. We need different opinions.

 

But we've got to have a strong enough partnership, for example, with us to allow us to make the kinds of reforms internally, whether it's base closings or we don't need any more of these planes or these ships, but we do need these for the future. We've got to have the partnership strong enough so that both sides can -- can get to some conclusion and make a decision on how we go forward.

 

Congress is critically important here. It is Article I of the Constitution. I was in the Congress, as you noted. I was very protective of that constitutional responsibility. They control the money. They are closest to the people. So, we need them.

 

I've tried in the time I've been secretary of defense to continue to reach out and build those partnerships. We can't do this any other way. And again, I'm hoping that over the next couple of years we will see a culture of self-correction. Because that's probably the greatest strength America has is with difficulties and problems and issues, we can self-correct. And I hope that comes together.

 

MR. FALLOWS: And I'd go back and ask again, a part of my initial question I sort of threw in at the end, and what's easily to be passed over. We are going to spend 13 years now that we've been involved in more or less open-ended combat in the -- mainly in the Middle East, about 1 percent of the population affected and the rest not.

 

At what point, if ever, will and an administration be able to say, "This war is over"?

 

SEC. HAGEL: I think the way we have to look at this is tyranny, terrorism, the challenges and threats to our country, the freedom for certainly the short term is going to be with us. It is a reality.

 

Now, the challenges and threats to a nation, to an individual, are not new in the sense that threats are new. The history of mankind has been about that. It's always the response and how do you do it. And we have to be smart here. We've got to get the big things right. We won't get everything right. We've got to get the big things right.

 

So what I mean by that in answering your question, coalitions of common interest. We won't get it right with every country. We won't agree with every country, but we've got to focus on enough common interests to build a relationship that deals with the threats to all our countries.

 

ISIL, extremism, radicalism, terrorism is a threat to every state, to every society. We've got to build those platforms to work from there to get to the differences .

 

So unfortunately, I see these things continuing to stay out there, Jim. I think we're in for longer-term challenge here than maybe any of us would hope. But that's the world that we live in, and we've got to be honest about that. And we've got to be smart about it.

 

MR. FALLOWS: You straddle two worlds, in many ways, but including on the climate issue that you mentioned before, where in the Senate you saw the extremely polarized discussion of climate and energy issues.

 

Now at the Defense Department, the Defense Department has been one of the leaders on awareness of these issues both the potential threat and fuel alternatives and all the rest. What is the Defense Department doing -- Department doing on climate issues, different fuels? And might that change the broader national debate do you think?

 

SEC. HAGEL: From my perspective within the portfolio that I have responsibility for, security of this country, climate change presents security issues for us.

 

What do we mean by that? Well, let's take the Arctic. Glaciers are melting. There can be arguments about why and -- but let's put those arguments aside. The fact is the glaciers are melting. You're saying
that part of the world opened up.

 

If, in fact, that continues we're going to see a new waterway right into the heart of the Arctic. That means exploration for natural resources, and oil, and natural gas, and minerals. That is going to
attract -- it already is -- great powers.

 

That -- there's a security dynamic to that. As the oceans increase, it'll affect our bases. It'll affect islands. It'll affect security across the world. So just from my narrow perspective, what I have responsibility for, that's happening now, and we have to be prepared for that.

 

The job of leadership as much anything else, as everyone in this room knows, is to prepare the institution that you serve, that you lead, for what's coming. And so, we've laid out a new Arctic strategy. I did that first in Halifax last November. I was just in South America about a month ago to lay out the road map and how we're dealing with this. I just sent this morning one of our deputy assistant secretaries to Iceland for a conference the next two days. This is critically important that we pay attention to this.

 

Bottom line is, with all the crises of the moment -- and that's part of my job, too, to manage the immediate crisis -- we also cannot lose sight of the strategic longer-term challenges that face our country, either. And this is one that we've got to be smart in how we handle it.

 

MR. FALLOWS: And do you find the political figures who would otherwise resist and argue about climate change respond differently when it's coming from the Pentagon?

 

SEC. HAGEL: I think there is sometimes more of an awareness and an edge put an issue when it comes from the Pentagon. Serious -- since -- only because the military, the Pentagon, has maybe, at least perceived by many people, a more serious look at the world and doesn't mean the State Department's not series or anybody else.

 

But when you talk about the military -- you know, I remember, Jim, when I was in the Senate, one of the committees I served on was the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. And John Warner and I introduced legislation a number of years ago to project and bring up in the Intelligence Committee authorization bill, a study on climate change on how it would affect our national security. And this was quite a few years ago. So I wasn't the only one thinking about it. John Warner, John Kerry, there were -- and bipartisan, too. There were a lot of people thinking about it.

 

MR. FALLOWS: You were recently in China. That's a place where I've lived for a long time. It's a country that many people think could be the next peer competitor in some way to the United States. How from your perspective do you fear, not fear, pay attention to China? And could you tell us about your aircraft carrier visit there?

 

SEC. HAGEL: Well, I've been secretary of Defense about two years now, and I have taken six long Asia-Pacific trips. And one of the visits was a four-day visit in China, as you noted earlier this year. And the
Chinese gave me a tour of the retrofitted Ukrainian aircraft carrier that they bought from Ukraine. And that was an interesting experience.

 

But as I had an opportunity to visit other facilities -- and I have over the years have some relationship with China. I first went to China in 1983 as a businessman. That relationship is one that, as I said
earlier in more general terms, that we need to make sure we get right.

 

We're not going to agree with them -- we don't on everything. But we should be focused, they should be focused, and I think we are in many ways, on where we can cooperate. They are a great power. They're going to continue to be a great power. We're a great power.

 

We have made the point on the Asia-Pacific rebalance -- that rebalance was not about trying to contain China or to cut China short. We don't want that to happen. We are a Pacific power. We've been a Pacific power. We have strong obligations and treaty obligations there in that area.

 

Our economic interests are that area. We can cooperate. We want to make sure that the air and maritime channels are free and open. That's clearly in our interest and the interest of the world, not just the economic interests of the world.

 

So yes, we're going to have differences. We do have differences, but we have far more areas where we can agree, and that's where we should be focused.

 

MR. FALLOWS: And just as a volunteer observation, at the time I was living in China, I often saw the connective tissue between the U.S. military both active duty and some retirees with their Chinese counterparts, which really was an important sort of understanding tool between the countries, I thought.

 

SEC. HAGEL: Well, I just met with State Councilor Yang when he was here a couple weeks ago. And when I was in the Senate, I got to know all their ambassadors well, and was there a number of times, so I've got some personal relationships that have been helpful.

 

And we all know that nations always respond in their own self-interest, that's predictable. That's good. But personal relationships are the lubricant. It's just like in Congress. If we could develop a little more of a personal relationship basis, the lubricant, it makes it less difficult. It isn't -- it doesn't change a policy, but it makes it better.

 

MR. FALLOWS: So, in our last minute or two here, I want to ask you a personal question.

 

As the president noted when nominating you, as Steve was saying here, you're the first enlisted veteran of your sort to lead the Pentagon. I want to ask you what your personal hope is in the remaining two-plus years in this job.

 

And also, the time in which you served, it was the very bitterly divisive Vietnam era. You're now in the volunteer force era where a tiny little fraction of Americans is serving, you know, on repeated deployments, while the rest of us are not involved. How does the experience of your Vietnam service affect the way you think about this ongoing service by this 1 percent?

 

SEC. HAGEL: Well, Jim, we all are products of our experiences. And, yes, it affected me. I was there in 1968, which was the worst year. Went through Tet. We sent home 56,000 dead Americans in one year. I mean, that's -- to fathom that today is unbelievable.

 

I learned an awful lot, like anybody does when you go through those things. But it helps me I think in many ways to do this job. And if nothing else, it has always made me aware of, be careful of unintended
consequences, be careful of good intentions, always think through the whole sequence of questions: What happens, where is this going, what's the end result, and what could go wrong?

 

And I wish I was smart enough to have all the answers, I don't. But it's made me cautious. And, now, caution to a point is okay, but then you've got to make decisions,

 

You asked about the next two years. What I would hope the next two years we can do is bring this country back together, to work together, to address these big, big issues coming at this country that will have long-term consequences for our society, for our next generation.

 

That's what I hope we can do. I'll do everything I can to continue to do that. We'll have differences, okay. We should debate those, that's okay, but we've got to get the big things right and come together.

 

MR. FALLOWS: Great. Well, please join me in thanking Secretary Hagel for his service and for coming here today.

 

SEC. HAGEL: Thank you. Thank you very much.