Remarks at NATO Defense College Senior Course

As I’m sure you know, Secretary Powell has spent the last four years as a statesman, but his formative years were in the Army. I, myself, am only lately a diplomat, and I suppose some people would argue even that. So you will understand our shock when we first came here and found even senior officials only had a few weeks of leadership training. According to Secretary Powell, he spent something like 7 of his 35 years in the Army doing that. One legacy I hope we leave here - and I’m not saying we’re leaving any time soon, mind you - is a robust training regimen for all our personnel. Which is a long way of letting you know that I truly am delighted to speak with you today. I feel very strongly that your course of study is essential to cultivating better officers and to creating a better Alliance.

I also welcome the chance to speak with you about America’s commitment to NATO. Not just as the Alliance that brought us victory in the 20th Century but also as a dynamic partnership that continues to adapt to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. And while I know we’ve seen some rough spots in the past couple of years, when you look over time and the larger continuum of interests, NATO is arguably stronger today than it has ever been before.

Indeed, at the most recent NATO summit in Istanbul, we spelled out some ambitious goals for ongoing military operations in Europe, but also in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as for the future of the Alliance. Only 120 days later, we’ve already made important progress on those goals and that says much about how much the Alliance has changed.

As we discussed in Istanbul, NATO is soon to mark a milestone in the Balkans. After nine years, SFOR, the Stability Force in Bosnia, is ready to declare "mission accomplished." We’ve succeeded in separating warring parties and dramatically improving the security situation. The stabilization of Bosnia has taught us all a great deal about the kind of military operation NATO is likely to see in this new century. We still have to prevail militarily on the field of battle, whether it is Bosnia or Baghdad, but we also have to prevail beyond the battlefield in capturing the hearts and minds of the civilian population. Moreover, we have to succeed at both these missions - winning the war and winning the peace - at the same time.

Indeed, our goals for Afghanistan at the Istanbul Summit reflected that essential challenge. We are already seeing some good results in meeting those goals. The October 9th presidential election was a stunning success for the Afghan people and it was NATO forces that helped make that possible by working with Afghan troops to provide the necessary security. At the same time, the NATO-led International Security Force is assisting the central government in extending its authority throughout the country through five Provincial Reconstruction Teams, which, as I’m sure you are aware, are a dispersed force for providing regional security as well as reconstruction aid.

The immediate challenge for NATO in Afghanistan is to expand our operations to the west. We will also have to consider how the Alliance can help address the two most significant security problems facing Afghanistan today; recalcitrant warlords and narcotics trafficking. This will not be easy, particularly when we consider that NATO is having a hard time generating the force necessary for carrying out the current missions. But I’m afraid the gains we’ve seen in Afghanistan will prove elusive if we fail to address these central threats.

Of course, NATO members are likely to continue to have differences when it comes to Iraq, but our leaders did reach a consensus in Istanbul that NATO should play a role in training Iraqi troops. Indeed, within weeks of the summit, NATO trainers were already on the ground in Baghdad, preparing for that mission. And back in Brussels, the operational plan for a training center on the outskirts of Baghdad is now being worked out. The center will be under the command of General David Petraeus, which I think was the right decision, both in terms of force protection and good coordination and in terms of personality. I’ve had a chance to meet with General Petraeus in Iraq and he is not only a talented officer, he has the right kind of talent for the sort of operations we are engaged in today.

And while I would say the Istanbul summit focused on these current operations, we also looked to the future. For example, our leaders approved something called the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, which seeks to promote security cooperation and defense reform in the Middle East. And while positive engagement in the broader Middle East is something new for NATO, I believe it is in the interests of every member of the Alliance. I also believe it points to a larger shift in the way we do business. NATO has, in the past, been a largely reactive institution, which was appropriate for the times and the situation during the Cold War. Today, in facing such dangers as terrorism and proliferation, we have to take a more proactive and multifaceted approach to building security.

I think one reason this Alliance is proving so adaptable and responsive to changing circumstances is the underlying soundness of the security architecture. NATO is built on a foundation of shared ideals and reinforced by all of the energy and optimism that come along with having a democratic society and an open economy. Bringing in new members and partners has only deepened our appreciation for these bedrock principles. Indeed, the seven newest members have added greatly to the strength of the Alliance and are already making a significant contribution to our collective security.