SecDef Speech to the Association of US Army

[nerdgirl 0]

Did anyone else catch Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ speech to the Association of the US Army last week?

Full text: http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1181

In addition to praising the soldiers and noting the remarkable re-enlistment rates, he also said some things that are potentially controversial implications for the Army … & the other services.

Excerpts, emphasis mine:

“I would like to frame the discussion in two ways:
-- First, what America owes the Army after six years of war; our first protracted conflict with an all-volunteer force since the American Revolution.
-- And second, what the Army owes America – as it prepares to defend this country’s freedom and interests in the decades ahead

“The U.S. Army today is a battle-hardened force whose volunteer soldiers have performed with courage, resourcefulness, and resilience in the most grueling conditions. They’ve done so under the unforgiving glare of the 24 hour news cycle that leaves little room for error, serving in an organization largely organized, trained, and equipped in a different era for a different kind of conflict. And they’ve done all this with a country, a government – and in some cases a defense department – that has not been placed on a war footing.

“Put simply, our enemies and potential adversaries – including nation states – have gone to school on us. They saw what America’s technology and firepower did to Saddam’s army in 1991 and again in 2003, and they’ve seen what IEDs are doing to the American military today. It is hard to conceive of any country challenging the United States directly on the ground – at least for some years to come.

“As a result of this stress, there has been a good deal of concern about the condition of the Army, leading some to speculate that it is “broken.” I think not.

“But while the Army certainly is not broken, it is under stress, and, as General Casey puts it, ‘out of balance.’

“So when one considers what the nation owes the Army, the answer is a good deal. And it starts with gratitude and appreciation for the service and sacrifice of soldiers and their families.

--

“One of the Army’s concerns you’ve heard about at this conference is getting back to training for ‘high intensity’ situations – a capability vitally important to deter aggression and shape the behavior of other nations.

“It strikes me that one of the principal challenges the Army faces is to regain its traditional edge at fighting conventional wars while retaining what it has learned – and relearned – about unconventional wars – the ones most likely to be fought in the years ahead.

“Indeed, history shows us that smaller, irregular forces – insurgents, guerrillas, terrorists – have for centuries found ways to harass and frustrate larger, regular armies and sow chaos.

“We can expect that asymmetric warfare will remain the mainstay of the contemporary battlefield for some time. These conflicts will be fundamentally political in nature, and require the application of all elements of national power. Success will be less a matter of imposing one’s will and more a function of shaping behavior – of friends, adversaries, and most importantly, the people in between.

“One of the challenges facing the Army will be how to incorporate the latest in technology without losing sight of the human and cultural dimensions of the irregular battlefield. For example, we have spent billions on tools and tactics to protect against IEDs. Yet, even now, the best way to defeat these weapons – indeed the only way to defeat them over the long run – is to get tips from locals about the networks and the emplacements or, even better, to convince and empower the Iraqis to prevent the terrorists from emplacing them in the first place.

“The same is true for mastering foreign language – a particular interest of mine – and building expertise in foreign areas. And until our government decides to plus up our civilian agencies like the Agency for International Development, Army soldiers can expect to be tasked with reviving public services, rebuilding infrastructure, and promoting good governance. All these so-called ‘nontraditional’ capabilities have moved into the mainstream of military thinking, planning, and strategy – where they must stay.

“In addition, arguably the most important military component in the War on Terror is not the fighting we do ourselves, but how well we enable and empower our partners to defend and govern their own countries. The standing up and mentoring of indigenous armies and police – once the province of Special Forces – is now a key mission for the military as a whole. How the Army should be organized and prepared for this advisory role remains an open question, and will require innovative and forward thinking.”

“Finally, there is a generation of junior and mid level officers and NCOs who have been tested in battle like none other in decades. They have seen the complex, grueling face of war in the 21st century up close. They’ve lost friends and comrades.

“These men and women need to be retained, and the best and brightest advanced to the point that they can use their experience to shape the institution to which they have given so much. And this may mean reexamining assignments and promotion policies that in many cases are unchanged since the Cold War."

--

Is it totally off base to see a thematic -- not direct or literal -- connection between this speech, Gen Petreaus' July American Interest article, LtCol Yingling's Armed Forces Journal article, yesterday's Washington Post Op-Ed, the August NY Times Op-Ed? This is a span from the SecDef to "7 NCOs." (I can cite others ... PM if you want authors & links.)

After every prolonged conflict the military has a re-evaluation. The big one after WWII led to the creation of the Defense Dept. Is this just an intellectual exercise? Is the part about promotions backlash/re-adjustment to the more pronounced politicization of general officer promotion that occurred during Secretary Rumsfeld's 2nd tenure?

[/speculation]
Post WWII, the US saw a strong civic presence of veterans both Democrats and Republicans - from Dole to Inouye - who entered into politics.
While there are notable Vietnam veterans (Webb & Murtha come to mind immediately), the impact has not been the same. I think (hope!) that OIF & OEF will be more like WWII, which is one more reason why those Army Captains in particular are important. Most will not make Colonel. Those who leave will retain a direct connectivity.
[/speculation]

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying