Foundation Forum

General John G. Lorber
Commander, Pacific Air Forces
Presented to the Air Force Association

PACAF IN ASIA-PACIFIC -- THE THREAT AND THE FUTURE

Thank you for that introduction. I am probably one of the few people who didn't look forward to coming down here to Orlando to get a little warm. I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you about my command, PACAF, and also about the Asia-Pacific area.

Because I believe this region of the world will undoubtedly become the economic, political, and probably most likely the military center of attention in the next century -- and having spent 12 years of my career there -- I've developed some understandings of the problems and issues. I tell you I am not foolish enough to claim to be an expert -- the region is much too complex for that. Anyone claiming to be an expert had better be ready for some surprises. Those of you looking at Asia-Pacific and view in your mind's eye rickshaws and mud roads will be surprised when you go over there. When you look left or right, depending on which country, you probably won't be hit by a rickshaw, but you might be hit by a Mercedes.

The energy and growth in this region has been phenomenal. The U.S. military has played a critical role in ensuring the stability of the growth and energy. We have brought security and stability to an area that historically has been at war. For example, during the first half of the last 57 years, the Asia-Pacific basin has been affected by war -- World War II, Korean War and the war in Vietnam. A hundred thousand Americans gave their lives in these wars. With the end of the Vietnam War, we did not disengage, we did not demobilize as was our normal trend in past wars. We stayed in the region with heavy bases -- bases that ranged from the Philippine Islands to Japan. With our presence has come peace and stability. With peace and stability has come unparalleled prosperity. For this prosperity to continue, it will remain important that the U.S. and Pacific Air Forces stay engaged in the Asia-Pacific well into the 21st Century.

Today I'd like to discuss some of the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead of us. Recently, I flew to Korea to attend the 7th Aerospace Symposium being held at Seoul. I could see in my mind's eye the deprivation and starvation that was occurring up in North Korea. At the same time, I could see the vibrant lives of the South Koreans and the growth that has occurred in their economy. These extreme contrasts, marked by this thin political line called the DMZ [Demilitarized Zone], illustrate in many ways the contrasting elements that come together in the Asia-Pacific area. Asia-Pacific is the point of political and cultural convergence, and also, perhaps most importantly, of economic interest.

PACAF's area of responsibilities, which mirrors PACOM's [Pacific Command], encompasses some 100 million square miles and 60 percent of the world's population. The people of the region are spread throughout more than 40 countries and speak more than 1000 languages and dialects. These languages and dialects themselves are a challenge for many who are cultured in different languages. Even trying to find someone's golf handicap can sometimes be a challenge [laughter]. I spent a weekend in Indonesia and spoke to the air chiefs and air staff down there about our role in the Pacific. We use a term which has been used throughout history -- to be an "honest broker." After our meetings and during dinner, the air chief looked at me and said, "I think we have a little bit of problem in one of your words used in your presentation." He speaks very good English so he understood. Let me tell you, he said, "honest broker" in Indonese, translates to "clever crook." There are probably other words out there we are using that, as Ken Minihan was talking about -- the exchange of thoughts and information that do not convey the right message.

In the Asia-Pacific basin we find vestiges of the Cold War in staunch Communist North Korea as well as contrasting economic leadership in countries like Japan, just 500 miles to the east. And there are hot spots. Seven of the world's largest armies are entrenched in Asia-Pacific, and weapons of mass destruction deployed there are ever increasing. As one senior regional leader told me, this is a tough neighborhood. If Asia-Pacific is a tough neighborhood, it is also a very promising one.

As an example, Indonesia's economy has grown as much in one generation as America's has in the last hundred years. Japan now has the world's second largest economy, and China is not far behind. For those of you who were stationed at Clark AB [Philippines], I am proud to announce that the Republic of the Philippines, under the leadership of President Ramos, is making progress. Clark has recovered from the Mount Pinatubo eruption and it is an industrial center that has vibrancy. Also, when you go into Clark AB, you see people smiling.

The Asia-Pacific region is the largest consumer market in the world, and we, the world's largest trading nation, must be poised to participate in this extraordinary economic growth. Failure to participate in Asia-Pacific affairs could have a most negative impact on future generations of Americans. As President Clinton has stated, "We have a shared destiny with the Asia-Pacific region, a genuine partnership for greater security, freedom and prosperity." So, as we get ready to step into the new century, the Asia-Pacific region presents us with not only the greatest peril, but also with the most promise. The fault line laid by the Cold War is starting to disappear.

But I warn you. As this fault line continues to fade, economic success creates divisive forces. The need for raw materials and access to markets breeds competition. And, unfortunately, competition often breeds conflict. As in the case of China and Japan, competition is also complicated by historic animosities and conflicting territorial claims. Tie this in with recurring natural disasters and you have an environment ripe with tension.

The nations of the region look to the United States for help and support in dealing with these challenges. But the question they all raise, and they raise it every time I visit, is whether we will be there when needed. It boils down to a simple matter of trust. Can they be confident that we will continue to be engaged in the Asia-Pacific affairs for the duration? If not, their need for self-protection takes on a new dimension.

In the Asia-Pacific region, our current national security strategy of engagement and enlargement enhances U.S. security. It promotes our prosperity at home and extends free market economies. But the majority of Asia-Pacific nations need reassurance. Exercises like the ongoing QDR [Quadrennial Defense Review] shake the nations of the region's confidence. Just the examination of our force structure causes concern. Actual reductions would, in my opinion, cause an arms proliferation. We must, therefore, through our words and deeds, show that our commitment to the region and its stability is unequivocal, that America is a Pacific nation and will stay actively involved in issues affecting the region.

Our primary goal out there is to keep peace. We are doing that through what former Secretary of Defense Perry called preventive defense. For me, preventive defense comes down to three tenets: engagement, deterrence and then, if needed, the ability to defeat an aggressor.

First, let me address engagement. There is no better way to demonstrate U.S. commitment than to station and deploy our forces to the region. Working daily with this region's nations gives us the opportunity to influence events. It gives us the opportunity for land-based air to develop the capability for access.

The circumstances in Okinawa, for example, recently brought to attention our military presence in the region. Both our government and the government of Japan could have succumbed to pressures to drawdown our forward-based forces. A decrease in numbers from our stated 100,000 commitment, would have, in my opinion, signaled to the nations of the Asia-Pacific region the beginning of a U.S. withdrawal. After months of negotiations, a successful agreement was reached to maintain basing structures that allow us to support this hundred thousand commitment.

The end result was both the United States and Japan realized why we were there. It was not just for the convenience of the United States. It was not just for the defense of Japan. Our U.S. presence serves as a stabilizing element for security throughout the entire region. Now, the United States-Japanese partnership today is even stronger and provides the added reassurance that we will remain focused on peace and stability in the region.

Daily reassurance is reinforced by the use of military power to engage others in peacetime military activities. We are busy doing that every single day. These activities could be as simple as a C-5 landing in some remote area with the American flag on its tail. It could be a 2 versus 2 with the Japanese Air Self Defense Force or it could be an exercise, such as Cobra Gold down in Thailand. Reassurance is also assistance to Kobe, Japan, after its tragic earthquake, or the rescue of lost fishermen. Reassurance is deployed medical teams providing public health and medical care to local nationals in remote locations. Presence and involvement is reassurance. It is, and will continue to be, one of my command's fundamental roles.

Reassurance is searching out each other through military-to-military contacts, which builds friendship as well as understandings. Last year alone we participated in 23 exercises with 11 different Asia-Pacific countries. Korea and Japan dominated the list, but we also worked with Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Australia and others. We had a squadron-to-squadron visit with India and we even exercised, on a smaller scale, with Hong Kong, Bangladesh, and Russia. Working with those countries provided the added benefit of building trust. Trust allows us access when needed to react to any crisis.

We are also looking at expanding our exercise up in Alaska called Cope Thunder. Last year the Japanese and Singaporian air forces participated, while Australia, India and Korea observed. We are now working to provide the opportunity for others to participate. In 1998 we plan to have five of our Asia-Pacific nation partners flying in the skies over Alaska.

Reassurance is lacking though, without the capabilities to deter and, if necessary, prevail in war. We cannot build, train and sustain forces solely for reassurance. With that in mind, let me change the pace here and talk about air and space power in the 21st Century, and how the Air Force's vision fits perfectly with how we successfully deter, and if necessary, achieve victory in an Asia-Pacific conflict.

What we face in this region are large standing armies, extreme distances from the continental U. S., and terrain that impedes rapid ground maneuvers. With the exception of Korea, where we've had four decades to plan, prepare and preposition forces and WRM [war readiness material], other conflicts will be fought with little or no in-country presence, and often with very little prepositioned support. It is our core competencies that provide the foundation we'll need to have a credible force in the Pacific.

First and foremost -- and Dick Hawley talked a lot about this -- we have to have air and space superiority. In many cases, our ground forces will be outnumbered. Therefore, we must provide our joint forces with the ability to operate throughout the entire battle space without hindrance from above. More than 50 years ago, Field Marshal Romell said, "Anyone who has to fight, even with the most modern weapons against an enemy in complete command of the air, fights like a savage against modern troops under the same handicaps and with the same chances of success." I'd go even a step further and say, if you don't have air superiority, the first thing you should do is start thinking about waving that white flag.

Those that argue our present capabilities, with modest upgrades, will ensure air superiority well into the 21st Century, are not looking at the same air order of battle I review each day. Air superiority is something that requires constant capability upgrades. Expecting that today's systems will dominate tomorrow's threat is a formula for failure. It is not a matter of entering a conflict expecting to win the air war; we must enter knowing we will be victorious. The betting line should be 100, or maybe even a 1000, to one. I like Muhammad Ali's old quote when you talk about air superiority and the need to be dominant: "If you even dream you can beat us, you'd better wake up and apologize." [laughter]

As our nation's Air Force, we are charged with winning air and space superiority. It is one of our core competencies. We can't accept second place; we must be dominant. If one looks back at history, you can learn a valuable lesson. During the Korean War, we achieved air superiority with the F-86. It was an aircraft designed to do that. But we went into Vietnam using the F-4, and I love the F-4; it is a great airplane; I flew it as General Shaud mentioned. But it was an airplane not designed for the air superiority mission. As a result, we came out with a dismal 2 to 1 kill ratio in aerial combat. We learned our lesson, and we developed an aircraft called the F-15. That aircraft, right now, has an unblemished combat record.

But we can't rest on our laurels. Asia-Pacific nations are becoming capable air warriors. You'll find F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, MiG-29s, SU-27s, and you'll soon see SU-30s all with the Asia-Pacific flags on their tails. I think in the future you will probably see SU-37s out there also. China is developing and producing their own SU-27s. Japan is producing the F-2. And India is producing the Light Combat Aircraft. We no longer have a corner on the market of air power capabilities. During a recent deployment, our F-15 pilots went down and flew against the Malaysians flying their MiG-29s. I need to tell you that the Malaysians had only flown this aircraft six months by the time we deployed. Our guys were surprised -- we didn't dominate every engagement. During the coming months, you will hear debates about the need for the F-22. In my opinion, without an aircraft like the F-22, we can't guarantee air superiority, and that is unacceptable.

Along with clearing the air of enemy fighters, air superiority also means denying the enemy an ability to launch theater ballistic missiles against our forces and our centers of gravity. This is probably one of our most difficult challenges. Theater ballistic missiles are proliferating around the region because they are an easy, inexpensive way to become a regional power. North Korea has proven that with its NO DONG and TAE PO DONG missiles. They are impacting how we plan our defense of South Korea as well as the Japanese defenses. China has a reach beyond its boundaries, not because of forward-based forces or its capable long-range aircraft, but because of its medium range missiles. We saw that exhibited during the recent Taiwan issues. We must deny North Korea or anyone else the use of the skies for TBM [Theater Ballistic Missiles].

Space-based systems that detect launches and downlink the information to airborne lasers, or other systems, are critical to our air and space superiority. Air and space superiority means these mediums are ours, period.

In an area of responsibility that covers two-thirds of the planet, global attack and precision engagement are not only necessary; they are critical. Our forward-based presence provides the foundation of forces to conduct war, prepositioned in such strategic locations as Korea, Japan, Alaska, Hawaii, Singapore and Guam. They are mobile, well trained and ready to deploy quickly to react to a crisis. But we are limited in numbers. Fortunately, our Air Force has other arrows in its quiver, particularly for global attack and precision engagement with the B-2 and B-1.

The B-2 represents our continuing commitment to power projection. The B-2, as you well know, could cover the entire globe with refueling. So it is easy to understand the impact of a B-2 on the Asia-Pacific region. Its ability counters the argument made by some that the Air Force will be ineffective in the Asia-Pacific region because of its lack of access to bases.

Critical to the effectiveness of these bombers, however, will be the continued development of smart and precise-guided weapons. Arriving quickly at a distant target provides absolutely no dividend if the result is a miss. And the accuracy of weapons -- like the Joint, Direct-Attack Munitions -- will be essential in a theater where each missile, bomb, and bullet must count. In the future, we just won't have the luxury of large stockpiles and immediate resupply.

The recent demonstration that Dick Hawley talked about, the B-2 delivering GATS/GAM [GPS-aided Targeting System/GPS-aided Munitions] weapons, has not gone unnoticed by nations in the Pacific region. I suggest that we send a copy of this demonstration to any aggressor nation that considers testing our resolve. I am certain this tape would give them second thoughts.

I believe the need for rapid global mobility speaks for itself in the Pacific. Yes, we do have WRM and fuel supplies forward deployed, but they are only in a few locations. If the future looks like the past, then they are most likely improperly positioned. Additionally, any conflict would quickly start to deplete our assets. The need for the C-17 and rapid resupply are critical to our deterrent and warfighting capabilities.

Just as important is agile combat support. Its efficiency and flexibility would substitute responsiveness for the massive deployed inventories that we simply do not have in the Asia-Pacific region. Agile combat support allows us to minimize the number of troops we have to forward deploy and protect. This has a twofold benefit. First, it frees up valuable and limited airlift in the first days of the war. Second, the footprint of the forces exposed to the enemy is smaller. Force protection, though still extremely difficult, gets a little bit easier.

Finally, each of these core competencies makes us a capable air and space power in the Pacific only when you bind them together with information superiority -- information that puts the right force in the right place at the right time. Again, all you have to do is look at the vastness and diversity of the Asia-Pacific region to understand that information delays of minutes or hours could mean on-scene delays of days and the difference often between success and failure. We must identify the centers of gravity, targets to attack, and we can't be wrong because we won't have many second chances. Each sortie, each pull of the trigger, must be effective.

The Asia-Pacific region watched our success in the Gulf War. They learned the value of technology and air power. As a result, regional powers are seeking and acquiring the kinds of systems and capabilities that proved so effective. Not only are they interested in the aircraft, but they are now working on precision weapons, command and control and communications, tactical intelligence, and electronic warfare. Economic prosperity has given Asia-Pacific countries, including China, the ability to obtain and even develop their weapon systems. They can either be a threat to the United States, or an issue of interoperability with our allies. The future holds many challenges and opportunities in this area.

I hope I have set the stage for you to start addressing the threats to the stability of the region. In the military, we often use the word "threat" and immediately think, "weapon system." In the Asia-Pacific region, military modernization will bring many countries onto the same playing field as the United States. It includes the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the delivery systems that go with them.

But the threat out here in the Pacific is more than systems; it is situations. In the Asia-Pacific region, it is the situations that will cause instability and ultimately conflict. One of the major issues that will become increasingly important throughout the Asia-Pacific region is the consumption of limited global energy resources. This has the potential to threaten peace in the region. Today, the Asia-Pacific region is second only to the United States in oil consumption, and its dependence continues to grow. The average Chinese citizen consumes very little oil by today's standards. But if the Chinese begin to use oil at levels similar to those used by the average South Korean, China's oil needs will double those of the United States. And then you need to consider how the flow of oil from the Middle East would affect relationships between China and the aggressive regimes there. How would China, Japan, Korea, and the growing economies of Southeast Asia deal with territory issues that may include oil-rich ocean reserves -- for example the Spratleys?

Oil is not the only energy issue. There is an increased reliance on nuclear power in Asia, and there has always been an unsettling link between the expansion of nuclear power plants and the potential to build and sell nuclear weapons. That should be of primary concern to us all, particularly when you think about countries like North Korea.

The Korean Peninsula presents the world with its greatest potential for high-intensity conflict. If North Korea breaks across the DMZ, thousands, perhaps millions, of people would die, and America would be at war. The North Koreans undoubtedly will attempt to fight a war of attrition through the use of their artillery and then follow that with a mass of infantry. In that conflict, it will be air and space power that will turn the tide of this annihilation and mass destruction that will be occurring on the ground. Our role will be twofold: air superiority and precision attack against centers of gravity.

The biggest challenge in meeting our roles in Korea won't necessarily be the North Korean air force because they lack sophistication and training. I believe, in short order, we would dominate them. But the biggest challenge will be deconflicting the skies over Korea, which would be crowded with U.S. Air Force and Republic of Korea air force, both operating large numbers of aircraft in an area one-fifth the size of that in Desert Storm. New and old systems will be working the same skies, and with that, friendly identification will be a significant problem. As we continue to search for work arounds to include all aircraft, we need to be working on the IFF [Interrogation Friend or Foe] capability that allows us to use Beyond Visual Range [BVR] missiles.

The true air threat in Korea is theater ballistic missiles and a government desperate enough to not only use them against the south but also to the east -- possibly against Japan. This is where the need for space-based detection and targeting with airborne lasers will be key.

Will we ever see peace on the peninsula? My crystal ball says, "Yes"; we will eventually see a united Korea. Whether that is through conflict or peaceful means remains to be seen. This could end up being a reunification or it could be a reconciliation. But because of the differences and the hatred in the two societies for each other, a combined Korea will occur only after a rough and very turbulent journey. It will not follow with the same ease as a restructured Germany.

We are working for this peaceful solution to settle the differences. If a unified Korea occurs peacefully, we have an additional problem: How would they be viewed as a military and economic power? How will countries like Japan and China view this power? And how will Korea mature as a nation? These questions are already being asked around the region. Without going into much detail, I believe that the distrust which occurs between the two societies of North and South Korea will remain for a long time, and so there will be a need in the distant future for U.S. forces stationed on the peninsula.

Any future discussion of the Asia-Pacific region must focus on China. Where China goes, so goes the future of Asia. We cannot ignore a country with more than one-fifth of the world's population, with intercontinental nuclear weapons, and one of the highest potential economies in the world. Each year the population of China increases by twice the number of people living in the state of Florida. For those of you who don't know, the population of Florida is about 14 million. In China, there are about 28 million more people a year. China is determined to maintain control of the situations with the greatest potential for conflict. This means trying to put "teeth" in its claims to sovereignty in the South China Sea and also on the island of Taiwan. All the countries in the region watch China very closely.

Is China a threat? A threat is composed of capabilities and intentions. Their history and everything we know about them lead us to believe that they are not inclined to follow a policy of expansion. But they do have an extremely capable military force, including 4,600 fighters. And they are improving this capability to support such a policy, if needed. ICBMs and production of their own SU-27s are clear examples. The key is their intentions. If China wants to be a contributing member of the Asia-Pacific region dedicated to regional stability, then our efforts will be much easier. Our most critical security task will be to help China integrate into both a regional and international community of nations. In the economic arena, we are engaging them in organizations such as ASEAN. We have started a dialogue with their military, as witnessed by our recent meetings in Hawaii, but we have a long way to go before an acceptable feeling of trust is achieved, if we are ever to achieve that.

In the interest of time, I've grouped Southeast Asia together. That is unfair because this is a diverse region itself with numerous cultures and various people. But the growing economies of Southeast Asia have allowed many countries in the region to modernize their military capabilities. Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand are just a few examples of countries with increasing military modernization. We are helping them. We have sold aircraft and systems to them. But we are not the exclusive provider. Malaysia's MiG-29s and Vietnam with their SU-27s are two good examples of countries using other weapon systems.

I believe that in this critical part of the world, stability will remain as long as there is a balance in military capabilities. It is an area where countries feel compelled to keep up with their neighbors. There remains distrust of one another, and it is where nationalism runs high. Alone, they know they can never hope to match China's military might, but they are reluctant to join forces in any formal coalition to go against the Chinese. In fact, they argue against anything called a coalition because they believe that would accelerate China's military buildup. So they structure their forces only to match their neighbors. They hope that we, the United States of America, stay engaged to balance the power of China.

India and Pakistan are both friends to Americans, but their relationship with each other remains volatile. Both are beset with internal and regional crises but have a common concern -- like Southeast Asia -- with a strong China. Their differences are deeply rooted, and there is a potential that a regional conflict between them could escalate and involve other Asia-Pacific countries. Stability here, between these two powers, will only be improved through our continued engagement.

I have left Japan as the last area, not because they are the least important, but because they are the most important. Our alliance with them is the keystone to stability in the Asia-Pacific region. Japan is the world's second largest economy and is now reviewing its defense guidelines for U.S. Japan bilateral defense cooperation. This bilateral review process will most likely result in bilateral, regional and global security cooperation with the United States. It is important that U.S. and Japanese forces focus on their present partnership as an alliance for peace. It is through our Japanese partnership that we are able to protect and project influence in the region. Our bases in Japan, and particularly in Okinawa, are the cornerstone of our forward presence in the Pacific. Loss of Kadena Air Base [Japan], for example, would have a significant impact on our capability to demonstrate deterrence or project power in this important region.

As you can see, there are many issues that complicate and impact our stability in the Asia-Pacific region. As a result, the region represents a paradox. There is tension on the Korean peninsula, growing economies that are breeding competition for limited resources, military modernization and nuclear weapons, and yet Asia-Pacific is more stable and more peaceful now than at any time in this century. So our strategy is working.

As a nation with vital interests in the Pacific region, we must be prepared to join the extraordinary economic growth taking place there, a growth we helped make possible, a growth that supports 2.8 million American jobs, with more likely in the future. I know that America understands the burdens of having our military engaged and based in the Asia-Pacific area, and I hope that we all realize the benefits of our efforts there and the leadership role that we play. We have a long history in the Pacific region, a history that has unfortunately claimed more than 100,000 of our sons and daughters in three wars in this century. The U.S. Air Force must continue to be a significant contributor to our nation's activities in this area. We have made significant contributions toward providing peace and stability in the past. We are maintaining it at the present and have the potential to ensure it in the future.

Because of our core competencies, we have the capability to link our interests, as well as our shores, with our Asia-Pacific friends and allies. But we must remain engaged, and only if we remain engaged will our formula for success work. God bless you and thank you very much.

General Shaud: That was great, particularly your view of the next century. The reason I bring that up -- if you will take the first question in that context -- is, are you satisfied with the Air Force's planned role in a Pacific-region MRC [Major Regional Conflict], and do you feel it reflects an up-to-date view of Air Force capabilities?

General Lorber: When I talk about the Pacific area, I usually discuss air power because the vastness and long distances one encounters in this part of the world require strong air power to maintain the peace. It can either be in the form of carrier-based air or it can be land-based air, or it could be support from the United States. Our big MRC out there is the Korean peninsula. In a potential, future Korean war, air plays a dominant role. Without air support, I believe the million men and women that the North Koreans have poised on the border would quickly overrun our forces. I also believe that Seoul would be devastated, being that it is so close to the DMZ. And after devastation of Seoul, it can be expected that the South Koreans would head north with vengeance. In the final tally, we might inherit a destroyed peninsula. Air power has to act fast. It has to stop the level of destruction so that a war on the peninsula would be contained and recovery, after minimum loss of life and destruction, is possible. Destruction of the peninsula in a blood war, like what we had in the 1950 Korean War, would cause us all great harm, including all the nations of the Asia-Pacific area. All countries of the region would be affected and we'd be affected equally as much.

General Shaud: The next question is a compilation of several. How effective has Chinese military modernization been to date in improving the capability in extending Chinese influence?

General Lorber: You've got to look at the intent and the capabilities of the Chinese. They have intercontinental ballistic missiles; they've had them for a long period of time. They've relied on them to balance out the threat they felt was from the old Soviet Union and from the United States. Their focus was always on a large standing army. But we are now seeing some indications that they are changing their emphasis on ground forces and are taking down some of their divisions. There are indications that by decreasing the size of their army, China can then assign resources to improve capabilities in other areas -- air being one. The most recent examples, their purchase of SU-27s and plans to co-produce SU-27s, show how serious they are about improving their air capabilities. I suspect you will also see an improvement in their naval capabilities with an eye on Taiwan. My guess is you are going to see a vast improvement in their air force and new, more robust amphibious capability with a corresponding decrease with respect to their land force.

General Shaud: The last question -- I'm sure you viewed Secretary Cohen's statements that he made during his hearing. Do you anticipate Secretary Cohen's emphasis on the Pacific having any practical impact on areas such as resource allocation or system acquisition toward the Pacific rim?

General Lorber: I'm going to take this question in a different context. The new secretary talked about the importance of the Asia-Pacific rim. Although Secretary Cohen's past focus has not been the Asia-Pacific region, I believe he realizes the importance of being engaged in this critical region. I suspect he will find pressure from the majority of our Asia-Pacific friends and allies to maintain the hundred thousand forward deployed, forward-based force. Arms proliferation, resulting from economic prosperity, will be an issue of growing concern. I believe the secretary has already developed profound interest in the Asia-Pacific region and understands the threats to stability in this area of the world and the challenges we are facing.

General Shaud: It is great to hear from a warrior, and our best to all your operators out there in the Pacific. Thank you very much.

Return to the Orlando '97 Foundation Forum Page