Joint Chiefs Chairman Defends Lincoln Battle Group Deployment to Deter Iran

The nation’s top military officer validated the
intelligence that raised concerns of possible Iranian attacks on U.S. forces in
the Persian Gulf region and said the deployment of troops to the U.S.-Mexico
border was legal and an appropriate mission to “fill gaps” in the Department of
Homeland Security’s capabilities.

In a detailed survey of global and domestic
national security issues May 29, Marine Gen. Joseph F. Dunford, chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, also said U.S. and South Korean forces are still “ready
to go to war tonight,” despite reductions in large-scale military exercises,
and he defined the rising tensions with China in the South China Sea as a “rule
of law” issue that must be addressed by other than military means.

Dunford said U.S. intelligence had detected Iranian actions and statements that created the appearance of a possible “campaign” against U.S. forces and allies, rather than the persistent hints of “a single action.”

With his four-year term as Joint Chiefs chairman
nearing an end, Dunford advised his successors to ensure that whatever future
funding the military receives emphasizes “capability” rather than just
“capacity” or numbers.

Taking questions at the Brookings Institute,
Dunford repeated the view he expressed at his Senate confirmation hearings in
2015 that Russia is the “existential” threat to the United States, but said he
has worked hard to maintain a dialogue with his Russian counterpart to reduce
the chances that President Vladimir Putin’s belligerent actions would lead to
conflict.

Asked about the controversy over the alleged
threats from Iran that led to dispatching the Abraham Lincoln carrier battle
group and B-52 bombers to the Central Command region, Dunford said U.S. intelligence
had detected Iranian actions and statements that created the appearance of a
possible “campaign” against U.S. forces and allies, rather than the persistent
hints of “a single action.” The intelligence also indicated that Tehran
questioned U.S. willingness to hold Iran responsible for any third-party
attacks on Americans in the region.

He said the initial reinforcements were part of
an effort to “address that gap in perception” and to let Iran know that if
anything happened “it would be attributed to them.” The later decision to send
about 1,000 additional troops and extend the deployment of a Patriot air and
missile defense battery was to enhance force protection of U.S. personnel in
the region.

On the politically controversial border issue,
Dunford did not address the use of defense funds to build a border wall and
said his focus was to ensure that the troops sent to the U.S.-Mexico border
were properly equipped and trained and were performing legitimate military
functions. He acknowledged that the work at the border might reduce combat
readiness but said that was no different than when troops are sent on
humanitarian relief missions and is addressed by rotating units to minimize any
erosion of capability.

Dunford disputed the claims that the reduction
in large military exercises in South Korea because of President Donald Trump’s
courtship of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un had reduced the coalition’s
combat readiness.

He said the field exercises had been reoriented
to focus on ensuring the infantry battalions and Air Force squadrons were
combat ready, while table-top drills kept commanders sharp. He said U.S. Army
Gen. Robert Abrams, the joint forces commander in Korea, knows that if he
became “uncomfortable” about his readiness all he had to do was tell him.

On the disputes over China’s creation of
militarized artificial island in the South China Sea, Dunford said he does not
view that as an issue of “a pile of rocks,” but as violations of “the rule of
law” and the need to hold the violators accountable. He stressed, however, that
did not mean by military action, but the use of “other tools” such as
diplomatic and economic efforts.

Looking at the overall condition of the military
since he became chairman, Dunford said the increased defense budgets the last
three years have helped fill depleted munitions stocks, improve the condition
of aircraft and ground equipment and the combat readiness of the troops. But,
he added, the U.S. technological “competitive advantage” over potential
adversaries has eroded due to the earlier budget cuts and spending by Russia
and China.

A detailed analysis by the Joint Chiefs showed
the need for future defense budget increases of 3% to 5% a year to meet the
services’ drive to increase force levels. To those who will come after him,
Dunford said, “if you are going to grow capacity, make sure it has
capabilities. I wouldn’t grow the force more than can be sustained.”