they have assigned forces under them. >> ok. so but underneath them there are no forces. do i have that correct? >> ok. >> and those forces are generally provided through a global force management and a request for forces system and have you applied for forces? have you made requests through that system? >> i have. i used the global force measure process as do the others as well for satisfying -- missions that we have. >> all right. finally, the department is currently in the process of updating the guidance for employment of the force, the g.e.f., which establishes the department strategic objectives for campaigning, planning and security cooperation for the priorities being politicianed.

the first i think since africom was established. is it receiving a fair hearing under that revision process? . . . he de ce s, senator. i have been part of that process and i am aware that the department of defense as it looks at the revision is looking at ensuring that the requirement that we have for resources to conduct the building part of the capacity is being treated at a capacity is being treated at a level of priority different than so those fores that are required will enjoy a higher priority than has been in the past. we are participating in the process. >> thank you very much. >> can i just associate myself with general ward on that particular issue? i think it is a bit of a change in the department and it's a good one. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

there is only one area where i disagree with you and i told you this before. i would like to have you tell me where i'm wrong. our intelligence told us that iran would have the long range ballistic capability somewhere between 2015 and 2020. i would say 2015 then, as serious ass that. the sm 31 b would be 2015. it doesn't matter. that doesn't have the capability nor does the 2 a variety which would get into the intermediate. that is supposed to be somewhere around 218. the sm 32 b which is comparable to what we would have had and i think this is the case, if we kept the ground-based systems or the interceptor in poland. there is no data on that.

i would say and of course i objected to that first budget that the president for terminating all the programs like the f 22 and c 17 combat system. the thing i found most objectable was when he pulled the rug out from under poland and the czechoslovakia republic. i was with them this last friday. what i'm saying is that capability is there. we don't have a way of deterring that other than i understand the argument that we have the ground-based system in alaska and california. i don't have the confidence that they would have that. briefly, what am i overlooking? >> senator, i will ask to take that one for the record. it's a technical issue that i would like to provide you a little more data on.

i will say that as a naval officer who has commanded multiple ships at sea, i am extremely impressed given my background with the system and ability to adapt. part of my confidence comes out of my grounding and sea operating at that system and belief that it can be transitioned. having said that, i want to provide you the hard data on this and take that for the record. >> that's all right and i don't disagree. i have been a strong supporter, but looking at long range icbms and we get that for the record, general, i appreciated the fact that you said good things about ethiopia and the response to the chairman's question. specifically i know that the one under attack in ethiopia more than anyone else is the prime minister. he has a tough job and he's a tough guy able to do it.

when you make the same comments about his leadership as you would ethiopia in general? >> senator, i meet with the prime minister quite regularly and i have a huge respect for his leadership and the work he does as it pertains to addressing and cooperating with those who had the threat of terror in east africa, yes, sir. >> the fact that he was there with us and the somalia thing happened. i think he is taking a bum rap. you talked to the senator about the cooperation between rwanda, uganda and congo. i personally have talked to them on their cooperation with each other in another area, the area of the lra or whoever they are right now.

we made a point to go over to east africa thinking that was about where he was last seen and he had another reign of terror since that time. we have legislation right now that is hoping to try to get more assistance to those period presidents and to try to end what i call one of the worst reigns of terror i have ever personally observed. i have been there and observed it. do you think we should be helping with more resources to end that lra problem? would you support me on that? >> yes, sir. the work being done by that group of countries to combat the atrocity committed for over 25 years is work that's important and i think our support to the ongoing efforts is important to support. >> most of the members on the

committee are cosponsors that we have that would be helpful. one of the problems is that all three of these presidents came from a military background and there is a little bit of concern over is this reflecting, i can't do it myself type of thing. we are in position to jointly work on this thing. is there anything else in terms of what's taking place right now? maybe you can give us a couple of examples of improvements working with the african military. some of the successes there. >> thank you, senator. there several. as an example, as we work with the nations on their maritime safety and security, they have been called the africom program.

an interagency construct. we bring in homeland security and the coast guard working with african nations and the legal systems such that they have an ability to provide for the territorial waters and that is working. we conducted an exercise in east africa where we have nations. they came together and jointly working to help address a natural disaster or assistance scenario. as was pointed out to me by a chief of defense, the first time ever that as convoys move through that part of the continent, militaries that in the past 10 years ago you would not have thought they would come to link up and move to a common objective which was conducted in the north of uganda where lra had just three short years ago running with abandon and populations there. those are happening all over the place. we had a training operation and

the term that he mentioned, it went on last summer. a member who received training this past january said he had that training prior to that last situation where al qaeda grabbed forces. would that have happened? the training and assistance of these countries to be in a better position to address themselves is paying off. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i applaud all three of you for the grit work you have done. >> senator lieberman, i will turn the gavel over to you buzz i have to leave. thank you for your service. >> thanks, mr. chairman. i wanted to say to you first how impressed i am and as i hear you answer the questions about what's happening within the african continent and your involvement and knowledge of it and how important it is i think

that we created this african command. i think we were paying too little attention to this critically important continent and i think you are bringing to it the same kind of critical different relationship with the leaders and some of the regions of the world, the most important person in the region really is the original commander. as you said to me when i began this conversation over the hearing, it's only in a sense that it leads to other relationships, dim lo mattic and political, etc. i want to thank you for the way in which you have done your job. it's been very important. i know you have been asked about the missile defense. in your role, you are going to be responsible for operating the

early stages of the phase that adapted missile defense system. i thought i would ask you first for an analysis, if you will or report on what the state of european public opinion is about missile defense. in other words, do the europeans feel vulnerable now? there have been times in the not so distant history where they haven't. do they feel vulnerable and who are they worried about firing missiles at them? >> sir, i think there is a growing appreciation in europe for the danger from iran. i think they look at the nature of that regime and clearly a sponsor of terrorism, working hard to develop a nuclear device and additionally i think there is a great deal of understanding that the ballistic missile

technology that iranians possess is moving in pace. that is having an effect on the oorp eastern proclivity to be engaged with us on missile defense. it varies from country to country and there a number of factors from geography to relationships with the united states to general world outlook that shape it, but i think in my opinion it's fair to say that we are seeing a growing appreciation of it and i have to applaud the secretary who is moving forward on the diplomatic side. she's an expert and doing a credible job of mortgaging the practical partnerships which i believe overtime will grow into a missile defense. >> i appreciate that and the work that has been done. there was concern on capitol

hill when the decision was made to pull back from the initial plan, the polish-czech plan. how are we doing on the development of the alternative system and are you confident that it will meet the target dates we set so it provides adequate defense? >> i'm certainly confident that the first stage will. it will be sea-based and as we said to the senator, i have a great deal of confidence. given the track record and the technology embedded in it, i am reasonably confident it will be adapted and will transition to a shore-based system within the targets set for it. nobody can predict the delivery of defense technology. we have been surprised on that occasionally, but given the track record of the system and my understanding of where we are, i think it's reasonable to expect that we will hit those

bells as wu move forward. >> good to hear. there was a related article relevant in the "washington post" about the system and i will quote from it. after several failed attempts, the army is trying again to cancel a $19 billion missile defense system that the united states is developing in partnership with italy and germany and has been in the works for more than a decade. it's designed to replace in part the army's aging patriot system. i wanted to ask you whether you have been involved in discussions with your army colleagues about this program and your opinion of it and do

you see this as a unique feature and that we have a couple of our european allies and picking up a big chunk of the bill. whether you see it as part of the phase that you@@@@@@@ @ @ inured there's a sense that the system can be part of a missile defense system. i recently spoke with several chiefs of defense from participating nations who to end that. senator lieberman, it is also indicative of the relationship between the u.s. and israel, where we are looking at some of the isralei capabilities we are looking at the. we in the united states do not have the market cornered on all the smart technology. we would be well served by reaching out to our allies and finding what can be integrated. mead is potentially a player in

that. integrated and it is in fact a player in that. i will continue to follow the story. it is more important as an example as additional technologies can be adapted to the phased adapted approach. >> so at this point you are inclined to favor the continuation of the program? >> i don't know enough about it to make that statement, sir. >> okay, but i agree. there is a agreeing appreciation among allies in europe and in the mideast and in asia of the missile threat. particularly from iran and north korea. it makes a lot of sense to be

cooperatively. the last time i was in israel i saw video of testing of the iron dome system, the defense against short range missiles in iraq and it was quite impressive and we are partners with the israelis and we will have full benefit from its technologies in terms for instance of protecting american personnel bases and places like europe or the mideast from potential short range missile rocket attack. >> yes, sir. >> that's it for me. i have to go over. it has been a very informational and encouraging hearing. i'm sure the committee will try their best to authorize to a level that will ton allow the men and women in uniform who serve under you to did the job we ask to you do in defense of our security and our freedom. thank you very much. the hearing is adjourned.