AUSA Winter Symposium
Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
February 28, 2008
Good evening. General Sullivan, thank you for your warm introduction. It is a real pleasure to be here with you tonight....
The role of the after dinner speaker is clear, be funny or brief. I'm not very funny, so I'll try to be brief. I want to talk about three things: sacrifice, commitment, and the future.
First, sacrifice. The Army is stretched, but we are not broken. Let me give you a couple of data points that help explain why we are stretched. Right now, there are more than 150,000 Soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait (including about 16 percent of all Guard and Reserve Soldiers). Five hundred and fifty thousand Soldiers have served in combat zones, and more than 200,000 Soldiers have deployed multiple times. Today's Army is different from its predecessors. For the first time in the modern era, all our Soldiers are volunteers. Half of our Soldiers are married, most of our married Soldiers have spouses who work, and, of the 150,000 deployed tonight, nearly half of them have a child under two.
Twelve-month deployments are long; 15 months away from home, in harm's way, is almost unbearable. Ask the Families; the spouses and children, the parents, how hard it is to hold your breath for that long. To be terrified of late night phone calls or to experience the fear that builds when calls and emails don't come. We spend a lot of time focused on the wounded and the dead; those with broken bodies and spirits and those who aren't coming home. Suicides are up; quality standards for recruits seem to be slipping; the media is filled with stories of out-of-control Soldiers. In private, we say: the Army is at war, but the rest of the country is at the mall. There is more than a little truth and more than a little frustration when we say it.
By many accounts, we are making progress in the war, but the good news has been relegated to the back pages, overtaken by the primaries and America's concerns about the economy. Our planners say the effort can't be sustained; that we will have to pass on the next Request for Forces; that we've crossed the red lines. But the Army soldiers on; taking on the new missions, surging, replacing NATO units, securing the border, and trying to figure out how to make sure the next-to-deploy unit is C1 - trained, manned and ready, to meet CENTCOM's expectations for work in very tough environments.
I know what you are thinking about now; this is a pretty heavy topic to discuss after that wonderful meal. I did warn you that I'm not very funny. But this is serious business and we can't fix the problems until we understand them clearly.
We all recognize that this war has both stretched and stressed our Army. The Chief, like all of us, has struggled to define how best to characterize this situation. He describes the Army as being "out of balance." "Out of balance" does NOT mean broken and does NOT mean hollow. But this year's Posture Statement (released to Congress this week in support of the FY 2009 budget request) describes "restoring" our balance as one of the two critical challenges for the Army. The Chief has explained how implementation of the four imperatives will bring the Army back into balance by 2011 so I won't dwell on these points tonight other than to reinforce the point that we must recognize the sacrifices that Soldiers and their Families are making as we re-establish our balance in a period of persistent conflict.
While leaders inside the beltway wrestle with what it means to be "out-of-balance," Soldiers see it differently. Not all of them to be sure, but most. This brings me to the second topic I want to address - commitment. Day in and day out, at home and around the world, the Army Team of Soldiers and Civilians, demonstrates why we describe them as "the Strength of the Nation." They are committed to their missions and to the values which their missions are designed to protect.
I was in Iraq in January with GEN Griffin, the Commander of Army Materiel Command. We met with a lot of Soldiers. One afternoon, we met a supply company that had been standing in the cold for some time waiting for us. After brief remarks, General Griffin asked the Soldiers if they had any questions. I was surprised that the first question addressed to the Army's senior logistician would be on a matter unrelated to the war. The Soldier asked, "Sir, how do I get an absentee ballot'" The voting officer, a young 2LT, stepped forward without hesitation, and said, "See me." Soldiers expect to exercise their rights as normally as you or I would, in spite of their location and OPTEMPO.
Another old Soldier told me that his nephew was anxious at the end of his mid-tour leave. His mother, my friend's sister, was concerned and asked him why. He said, "Mom, I have to get back. My platoon doesn't have a medic and the Iraqis in the neighborhood were coming to rely on the care I can provide." New enlistments are on target and re-enlistment rates are above expectations, particularly in the combat arms. Almost all our shortage of captains and majors is due to the increasing requirements of modularity, not higher attrition rates. Despite the risks in today's deployment and a future that doesn't look much better, tens of thousands from all over the country continue to volunteer. If you need your faith in this country restored, go talk to some muddy-boots Soldiers and ask them how they are doing.
Finally, the future. The FY 2009 budget, coupled with appropriate Supplemental funding, will set us on the path to restore balance to the current force while building future strategic flexibility as required by the National Military Strategy. Such strategic flexibility will require modernized equipment, networks and technology, as well as better organization, doctrine and training. However, investment in our modernization programs is being questioned by many who wonder whether we can afford balance tomorrow and future flexibility.
I have a much longer talk about why I think the money is going to dry up; the economics and politics of resourcing national defense. But the short answer is that the money is probably going to dry up because history says it will. Six weeks after Yorktown, with the British still occupying New York, Charleston and Savannah, the Continental Congress began discussing how to reduce the cost and size of the Army. It happened after the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII, the Korean War and Vietnam. Why' Because Americans prefer peace, are skeptical of generals, and don't like the taxes necessary to support large standing armies.
So, if we believe that we are in a period of persistent conflict that will demand near immediate responses from the Army, what can we do to avoid the erosion of readiness that has followed every major combat operation in our history'
First, we need to increase the base budget for the Army. Our analysis shows that the Army's base budget is substantially short of what is needed to sustain the current force; our mission exceeds our money. Of course, in the recent past we have used supplementals to cover the shortfall; that can't be the plan for the future. Further, the Army is gaining new missions: Stability Ops is explicitly recognized as an Army responsibility in FM 3.0 (who else has volunteered') and the Homeland Defense requirements are skyrocketing (again, who else will do it). So how can we square this circle'
I suggest we advocate for an increased top-line for National Defense. Note, I did not say the Army. The Navy, Marines and Air Force are also facing new expectations and we've starved the other levers of international action (State, AID, Commerce and Treasury) while asking more of them as well. Even the well-resourced intelligence community can't keep up with our expectations for their performance.
It is unrealistic for Congress to task expanded expectations without expanded resources and, while I'm not sure how much to allocate to National Defense, I do know we'll get the security we pay for. The question is, in a dangerous world, is three percent of GDP enough.
Second, whether we succeed or not in that effort (and history suggests we won't), we will need to stretch every dollar, to buy more capability with the same amount of money. Our Posture Statement emphasizes stewardship of the taxpayer dollars and our commitment to making innovation a cornerstone for improving our effectiveness and efficiency. Everybody in this room can be a part of this solution.
That means equipment that is cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate and cheaper to maintain. And that does not mean junk; that means Toyota and Honda (who already build more than 20 percent of the vehicles built in the United States). That means squad leader radios the size, weight and cost of a Blue Tooth headset. That means JLTVs that don't cost $500K to buy and $50K a year to maintain. It means more built-in reliability and less scheduled maintenance. And it means knowing the condition and location of every piece of equipment at all times. We know this can be done; the private sector does it every day. We just need to synchronize the lessons of the market with the doctrine of the Army.
It is important to fully understand the commitment of your Army leadership to keeping our Army Strong. But you have a role in this effort as well. Achieving the goal of bringing the Army back into balance and achieving strategic flexibility will take years of investment, support and commitment from Congress, the American people and partners in industry who all influence our ability to move ahead.
Let me close with a brief observation on the enemy. Our enemy is not Muhammad, just as it wasn't Marx or Nietzsche. Our enemy is intolerance; the belief that I can impose my beliefs on you. Intolerance is inherent in humans and many conflicts occur over simple differences in belief. Other factors, like growing populations, globalization and technology, climate change and natural disasters, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and competition for resources all put pressure on relationships established by belief.
Americans are unusual because we come from many cultures with different beliefs. But we do have a few shared beliefs and one of those is respect for the beliefs of others, as long as they don't attempt to impose them on us. That is what our Soldiers are fighting for and that is what, God willing, our grandchildren (and theirs) will be fighting for. We need to do what we can do to enable our Soldiers to carry on this fight after the taxpayers have wearied of the expense. That is our responsibility.
As the parent of a Soldier and as a citizen charged with making sure all Soldiers begin every mission fully prepared, I'm committed to building a more effective, more efficient 21st century Army. I know you will all join me in shouldering that burden. Our nation depends on us to do just that.
Thank you very much.
Social Sharing