All across America and around the world, this is Veterans Radio.
This is Veterans Radio.
Welcome to Veterans Radio.
I am Jim Fausone.
I'm the officer of the deck today.
We've got some great programs for you.
I think you'll find very interesting.
We always want to remind you you can find more about Veterans Radio at its Facebook site
or at the web.
VeteransRadio.org is our new URL, VeteransRadio.org.
Where we're on the web 24-7, you can find a lot of our podcasts there as well.
We post new ones every Tuesday, so you can get a new story, a new interview,
something you didn't know before by going to VeteransRadio.org.
And before we get started, we want to thank our sponsors.
First up, we want to thank National Veteran Business Development Council, NVBDC.org.
It was established to certify both service disabled and veteran-owned businesses.
You'll find out how they can help your business by going to NVBDC.org.
We want to thank Legal Help for Veterans.
Legal Help for Veterans fights for veterans disability rights all across the nation.
You can reach them at 800-693-4800 or on the web at LegalHelpForVeterans.com.
We want to welcome to VeteransRadio today two retired Navy officers, Vice Admiral Kevin Green
and Captain Bruce Lemkin.
Admiral, welcome to VeteransRadio.
Thanks very much.
Happy to be with you.
And Captain, welcome to VeteransRadio.
Thank you, Jim.
Good to be here and good to have my classmates, Admiral Kevin Green, on with us.
Yeah, let me set this up a little bit.
Both of these gentlemen graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1971.
And they are both fellows currently with the American College of National Security Leaders.
And we have them on not because both of them have really interesting military careers.
We're going to let them describe in brief momentarily, but we really want to talk about
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or NATO, which is celebrating its 75th anniversary.
And they have some viewpoints on that.
So, Admiral, why don't you give us the thumbnail of your military career?
Sure.
Again, graduate of the Naval Academy, I served principally in destroyers during my career
and rode on that aircraft carriers that see later my career both as a destroyer squadron commander
and as a battlegroup commander.
My final military assignment was as the deputy chief of naval operations for plans, policy
and operations, which brought me very close to NATO, which had been a central thread of
my career and professional relationships throughout my time in uniform.
Yeah, it's a fascinating career.
We could spend the whole time on that.
And similarly, Captain Lemkin, Bruce, why don't you tell us about your career in the
nuclear submarine field?
Sure.
And again, thank you for having us today.
I'm an Naval Academy graduate as well as you said.
I was selected by Admiral Rick over to serve in the nuclear submarine program, served in
six nuclear submarines, including command of the USS I-MG Rickover, Los Angeles class
Bass Attack submarine and USS Michigan, then was a Trident ballistic missile submarine.
All my sure duty was in the Pentagon and a lot of time on the Navy staff as well as the
joint staff.
I retired in 1999 and was asked since I had been negotiating with North Korea to lead
our negotiations on implementing the 1994 Greed framework to dismantle North Korea's
nuclear weapons program.
That worked out great.
And I then came back into government early in the Bush administration and served through
some of the Obama administration for eight and a half years.
The last seven years as the Deputy Under Secretary of the Air Force for International Affairs,
I did a lot of work with NATO during that timeframe.
And while I had done operational work with NATO, most of which I can't talk about when
I was a sub-reader, I was involved in a broad array of support for NATO, both policy and
ensuring that NATO had the interoperable aerospace capabilities to partner with us against common
threats.
And we have both of you guys on.
As I said earlier, you're fellows of the American College of National Security Leaders.
Admiral, why don't you tell us what that organization is?
Well, first of all, it's a nonpartisan organization.
We don't take a partisan political stance on any of the issues we cover, but we take
advantage of the hundreds and hundreds of years of professional experience on the part
of our members who are retired generals, admirals, senior defense and State Department officials,
including quite a number of ambassadors, who are focused on national security and other
critical issues facing the United States.
We attend and take part in conferences.
We do a lot of writing.
We speak as well.
And our focus is entirely on the security and future of the United States in what appears
to be an increasingly dangerous world.
Yeah, I think everybody would agree that just on the nightly news, you see how things are
getting more dangerous all around the world, whether it's China or Korea or Russia or Ukraine.
And that sort of gets us to the central reason we're talking, and that we're approaching
the 75th anniversary of NATO.
And both of these gentlemen are big thinkers.
We're not going to ask them where they graduated at the Naval Academy.
You know, I'm sure they were one and two or two and three, but in any event, they're
big thinkers.
They've got all this great experience.
Bruce, why don't you start by telling us a little bit about the history of NATO and
what you see as the value of NATO?
Yes, thank you.
So NATO was founded 75 years ago, the wake of the end of World War II.
And you know, that was such a huge conflict that required a lot of blood, sweat and tears,
national treasure, however you want to put it.
And there was a feeling that we needed to ensure this wouldn't happen again.
Similar to what we said after World War I, the Great War, the war to end all wars, and
then lo and behold, 20 years later, we were in World War II.
And the rise of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, the Warsaw Bloc, really provided an
incentive for European nations to unite for the common defense.
And of course, US leadership was essential, and this also was in parallel with the Marshall
Plan where the US did so much to ensure the revival of the economic health of Europe,
particularly Western Europe.
The military aspect was very important in NATO, and General Eisenhower was the first
Supreme Allied commander of Europe, and NATO could enhance the NATO commander.
And NATO has continued to grow.
It's continued to demonstrate its relevance and value and evolve and transform as the
situation in the world has changed, whether it was the demise of the Soviet Union and
then, of course, some time after that, the rise of another adversarial Russia, and also
the rise of transnational terrorism and threats throughout the Middle East and actually, of
course, globally.
And we are all globally interdependent, whether it's security-wise, defense, economics, etc.
So NATO has continued to be relevant, as I said, and its relevance today, I would say,
is probably greater than it ever has been.
And now we've got 32 members with the accession of Finland and Sweden into the alliance.
And if we can just go back to 9-11, the attack on the, the terrorist attack on the United
States in 2001, was the first time that Article 5 of the NATO Charter was implemented.
An attack on one is an attack on all.
Again, I think of nothing more illustrative of how effective this alliance is.
Well, let me jump in there, because I think that's what, you know, people's knowledge
of history is short, and their, even memory of the current events is pretty limited.
Admiral, when we look at NATO today and the terrorist threats, talk to us a little bit,
Kevin, about how valuable it is to have NATO from the viewpoint of the American College
of National Security Leaders.
Sure, Jim, let's just begin with a recognition of a central fact.
The primary mission of NATO is collective defense and deterrence against potential aggression
against any of its members, wherever those threats occur and exist.
When we look at the situation, you mentioned Ukraine, and if you live in Eastern or Central
Europe and you're a neighbor to Ukraine, well, pick a country, pick Poland, for example.
You find yourself in the role as a first responder in the event that Russia moves further beyond
the borders of Ukraine.
Russia, if it should threaten the Baltic states, Poland itself or any of the other countries
within the NATO alliance, Poland is truly a first responder.
And how do we back up Poland?
We back it up with the rest of NATO.
We back it up logistically with troops, with weapons, with the whole panoply of capabilities
that the NATO nations provide and carry out.
We in the United States are far away.
It takes some time for us to send materials and troops and so forth, if they're not already
in Europe, to be able to respond in the event that an invasion or a movement further in
the Western direction takes place.
But even more crucially is the issue of deterrence.
It's a message to those who would threaten the NATO nations.
And that message is NATO is strong, NATO is unified, NATO is ready, NATO is capable, and
no attack on the alliance is going to succeed.
That's really what this is all about.
So, let me bring up a couple of contra issues.
I suppose you only get little snippets of this on the general news, but at times it
seems the American leaders complain that everybody in NATO is not carrying their weight in terms
of contribution, whether it be financial or military resources.
How do you respond to that kind of comment, Captain Limpkin?
Yeah, you know, it depends on how you hold the lights and mirrors on that and how you
interpret that.
You know, in 2014 NATO established what was really, is an aspirational policy that each
country strives to commit 2% of its gross defense domestic product for its military.
Not a price of admission, but again, it's a target.
And this year, 18 of the 31 NATO members are expected to meet that objective.
That's a record, but you know, that's just the money aspect.
Go back to in the wake of 9-11 and Operation Enduring Freedom and the ISAF and the international
security force that was mustered to deal with the terrorist threat that emanated from Afghanistan.
Every member of NATO at the time participated and suffered losses.
So this wasn't, yes, US paid the greatest price, certainly in terms of the human losses.
That said, this was a collective effort, and just as Ed LaGrine mentioned, about collective
security, and ultimately that spells deterrence.
The mission is to ensure we are ready, we are ready collectively as an alliance, and
that will provide a deterrence against any adversary that would attack a NATO member
or its interests elsewhere in the world.
Yeah, and we tend to focus just on things going on in Europe, but there are threats
all over the world, and being able to work cooperatively with other countries seems extremely
important, doesn't it, Ed LaGrine?
Absolutely.
And when we talk about providing security for member nations of NATO, as an alliance,
the nation's interests go beyond the military, of course.
It goes to the ability to travel and trade and communicate across the globe.
And if there are threats that exist somewhere other than the European landmass or the adjoining
waters, then absolutely.
I mean, we had thousands and thousands of NATO troops in Afghanistan.
We had their capabilities across the span of the military systems programs and capabilities
that they possessed.
Not anything new about that, really.
You know, my initial exposure to NATO was in the summer of 1970 on a West German torpedo
boat up in the North Sea, and doing NATO's job in a 135-foot boat against the East Germans
and the Soviets and the Poles.
And when I would talk with the officers about where are we doing this, the point all those
years ago was about demonstrating the readiness of NATO, not just the readiness of West Germany,
but the readiness of NATO to respond to anything that could be perceived as a threat against
the alliance.
That point never left my mind.
Well, Edwell, that requires training and the ability to communicate and cross-country planning.
I mean, it's really a big issue to get that degree of cooperation, isn't it?
Absolutely is.
And that's why we, within the NATO community, we have officer exchange programs.
The ships that I served on had NATO officers from Italy, from Germany, from other countries
as well.
And we fully man our positions on the NATO staff.
And it is a very smoothly running organization in terms of planning, in terms of political
considerations, in terms of readiness, and the technical side as well.
And Captain, it seems to me that you kind of have to look at NATO on the other side of
the coin.
Some people say the United States ought to be an isolationist.
Just worry about your own stuff and not everybody else's involvement.
But by being in NATO, it's a force multiplier, isn't it, Bruce?
Well, absolutely.
And I'm glad you brought this up, because there's, you know, our collective memory sometimes
is somewhat fuzzy.
You know, our fathers, certainly my father, fought in World War II in Europe.
Our grandfathers, both my grandfathers fought in Europe on World War I.
And then you look at, so are we going to learn those lessons?
It deters the next war in Europe, which might not start in Europe.
And if deterrence fails, we will not be fighting alone.
This also gets to another issue that I've heard people say, or address, or question.
You know, and I've had people say to me, well, why do we have troops in Germany to defend
Germany?
Why can't they defend themselves?
Well, as part of the alliance, of course, we're working on our interoperability and
our collective security.
But there's another aspect.
We're over there, so the war does not come over here.
We will deter the conflict in Europe, just as we do in South Korea and Japan and other
areas of the world.
So this is, we can't stand alone and survive in what is truly a global world.
And that's a lesson that we have to keep reminding ourselves of.
No, I think you're right.
And you touched on something I'm going to ask the admiral to comment on.
And that is this idea that a war may start in Europe or may not start in Europe, while
something's going on over in the Pacific with China and Taiwan or North Korea.
You need to be able to have defense and deterrence really all around the world if you're in the
United States.
How does this come into play as you think about it as related to NATO?
Well, I will just repeat something that a former chief of naval operations used to
talk about.
When asked about the size of the U.S. fleet, he said, well, the fleet of the United States
and our allies is about a thousand ships altogether.
The whole notion of fighting alone or deterring alone, probably more importantly, is bankrupt
today.
We need to work closely with our allies.
We need to make sure that they're ready, that we are fully interoperable across every capability
that we have with regard to intelligence, with regard to equipping, with regard to weapons
systems, with regard to communications.
We need to practice together.
And that's true everywhere in the world.
There is no better model, however, with regard to peacetime military arraigns than NATO.
And after all, NATO has been successful for 75 years in doing just that, in deterring
major combat in Europe that would spread elsewhere.
We have been somewhat less successful in other parts of the world for lack of other kinds
of alliances that can be so helpful to us.
Over time, those alliances and the connections that are made and the bonds that are made,
not only between the military members, but also the civilian governments, just get stronger
and stronger, doesn't it, Bruce?
Absolutely.
And the ability to communicate, the ability to be interoperable, and interoperability
is a concept that many people don't understand.
And that's understandable because it's not something they have to live with.
It's not about being able to talk to one another if you're flying different aircraft
or in ships that were manufactured in different places.
It's about understanding each other, about training together, operating together.
So if you need to, you can fight together as one.
And that's what NATO does better than any other arrangement, security arrangement, alliance
or otherwise.
Admiral, why don't we wrap up here?
You're wearing your hat as a fellow of the American College of Natural Security leaders.
I think Captain Lentking just gave us a good closing remark from his end.
But I'm going to give you an opportunity to do the same.
Well, I thank you, Jim, and all I would say is simply to reiterate that we need to be
very thoughtful about the friends that we make, the friends that we value, all of whom
have something to contribute to our security.
Most people can figure out how to fight a fire.
Most people can figure out how to deter a burglar, let's say.
But there's nothing like a professional.
And the professionals of our NATO partners at the scene of where a conflict could erupt
someday is a warming and reassuring thought.
We need to be sure that we are the kind of partners that contribute to our joint security,
to our combined security.
And understand that it is a very dangerous world.
It seems to be becoming more dangerous as time goes on.
We need to think twice before we decide to look away from those kinds of arrangements
and capabilities that are going to protect us and the lives and futures of our children
and grandchildren.
NATO is part of that.
Well, we really appreciate the time that Vice Admiral Kevin Green and retired and Captain
Bruce Lemkin retired from the Navy have given us as fellows of the American College
of National Security leaders to talk about NATO and its 75th anniversary here.
Gentlemen, thank you for participating with Veterans Radio today.
Thanks, Jim.
It's been a pleasure.
Thank you, Jim.
Thank you for the great work that you do.
And we appreciate this opportunity.
And I want to thank everybody for listening to Veterans Radio today.
I am Jim Fausone.
It's been a pleasure to be your host.
I'm a Veterans Disability lawyer at Legal Help for Veterans.
And you can reach us at 800-693-4800 or legalhelpforveterans.com on the web.
You can follow Veterans Radio on Facebook and listen to its podcasts and internet radio
shows by visiting us at veteransradio.org.
That's veteransradio.org.
And until next time, you are dismissed.
If you have a VA claim denied by the Board of Veterans Appeals, contact Legal Help for
Veterans at 1-800-693-4800.
They're experts in handling cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
Their number again, 1-800-693-4800.
We again want to thank our national sponsors, the National Veterans Business Development
Council, NVBDC.org, VA Ann Arbor Health Care System, the Vietnam Veterans of America, Charles
S. Kettles Chapter, Ann Arbor, Michigan, VFW Graf O'Hara Post 423 in Ann Arbor, and the
American Legion Press Corn Post 46 also in Ann Arbor.
We appreciate all your support.
You can go to veteransradio.net.
Click on the sponsor level and continue to support keeping veteransradio on the air.
And until next time, you are dismissed.