Posted on 11/21/2006 6:59:00 AM PST by 68skylark
Their effectiveness depends on a national commitment to properly recruit, train and equip.
Today we are engaged in a critical struggle in a dangerous and uncertain strategic environment. We are facing enemies that endanger our freedoms and our way of life. The stakes are high. The range of dangerous possibilities that exists today has never been more broad or perilous. In the news, the home security agency for England, MI5, said it is tracking 1,600 individual terrorists, more than 200 cells, and more than 30 terrorist plots. I do not believe the average American even mildly comprehends the degree to which our nation is in peril, nor does he understand how our way of life is threatened.
In my fourth year as chief of staff, being with soldiers and their families remains the best part of the job. We're very grateful for their answering the nation's call to duty in this time of war, and we feel an admiration of their skill, professionalism, and adherence to the warrior ethos and Army values. Their dedication and optimism about our future are contagious.
It is important to understand this, but we must also understand what soldiers and their families expect of their Army and their nation. Chief among these is an expectation to be "prepared" to properly fight America's wars, and any other mission that the nation assigns to our Army.
Our soldiers demand and deserve leaders who are able to grasp the challenges we face and leverage technological advances, leaders who will remain grounded in the foundations reflected in the soldier's creed and warrior ethos.
These leaders and soldiers are readily apparent in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere around the world. They can and must rapidly transition between disparate tasks with relative ease - whether it is combat, foreign training missions, counterinsurgency, homeland security, or disaster relief and humanitarian assistance.
Any nation engaged in a protracted war with an all-volunteer force requires that its young men and women be willing to answer the call to duty in sufficient numbers. "Influencers" such as teachers, parents, and other community leaders must encourage service. Our ranks should reflect our country's demographics. We should see our best young people seeking to serve. America's future depends on it.
Our soldiers' effectiveness in battle, both today and tomorrow, ultimately depends upon a national commitment to recruit, train, equip, and support them and their families properly. This is a matter of national priorities, not a matter of affordability. In my view, our nation can afford whatever is necessary to defend itself.
Enemies like al-Qaeda are neither constrained by the rule of law, nor are they deterred by our might. They are fueled by distorted ideologies opposing America's values. They are committed to reducing our global influence and undermining our society and liberties. They employ asymmetric tactics and terror, are transnational and dispersed, and can attack us and our interests at home and abroad.
The way ahead is clear: We need a shared understanding of the enemy and this long struggle. We need a learning and adaptive Army. We need a nation willing and capable of answering the call to duty. These are but a few of the things that are required to meet our soldiers' expectations, and to preserve our freedom and liberty.
Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker is the Army chief of staff. These are excerpts from the LeMoyne Leadership Lecture given Nov. 10 at the Union League of Philadelphia.
I do not believe the average American even mildly comprehends the degree to which our nation is in peril, nor does he understand how our way of life is threatened.
This is a hard-hitting speech for this day and time. I pulled out one short quote (above) that surprised me, but Gen. Schoomaker makes quite a few strong statements.
I don't think most Americans expect the head of the U.S. Army to tell them they've got to get more involved with fighting and winning the war on terrorism. I think he's saying that we need the public to help recruit and support our armed forces.
I find it pathetic that the latest crop of Liberal cowards have no clue that our nation's survival is at stake. Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of their cohorts have no clue how to lead this nation. They're morally bankrupt and our nation's security isn't their priority. IMO, the last election was a national disgrace. The American people don't want to face reality which is on a par with Germany in the early 1930's. Evil was facing Germany and Europe and few wanted to face that reality. Evil arrived at their door and hauled them off to the camps. I pray that the American people wake up before it's too late.
The General is absolutely correct. The average American is a blind sheep that mindlessly follows whatever the media tells it. I am completely surprised the Philadelphia Inquirer, leftist as it is, ran his comments. Maybe to justify a draft? (To put in perspective, it should be noted that one of the pressing issues the editorial board chose to write about today is the loss of the local team's quarterback. I can't adequately express my sarcasm over the contrast in topics.)
I worked for Gen. Shoemaker when he was a major. He was stand up then, and remains so. We are indeed fortunate he decided to come back from retirement. There are days when I wish I could go back as well...
In a better world, the media would help educate the public about the war -- there's no reason for the U.S. Army to take on this job. But since the job needs to be done, the Army is stepping up.
I was especially struck with:
“We must (also) understand what Soldiers and their families expect of their Army and expect of their Nation. their expectations are high, but they are not selfish. In fact, they are often unstated and usually quite reasonable. Chief among these is an expectation to be “prepared” to properly to fight America’s wars, and any other mission that the nation assigns to our Army. .
That’s the kind of rhetoric that unites Americans behind such goals as adequate support for the military.
I also liked the realistic way in which he defines the challenge of international terrorism:
“Because they are stateless, they are neither constrained by the rule of law, nor are they deterred by our might. They are fueled by distorted ideologies opposing America’s values. They are committed to reducing our global influence and undermining our society and liberties. They employ asymmetric tactics and terror, are transnational and dispersed, and can attack us and our interests at home and abroad. They won’t be defeated in battles with decisive outcomes – and conflict will not terminate with a signing ceremony.”
And contrasts that with our own military:
“We remain a values-centered, learning and adaptive profession of Soldiers, rooted in the fundamental principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States.”
This really helps to highlight one of the major problems when fighting “stateless international terrorism”– defining the balance between “keeping America safe” and “wining the war on terror” - which are not always the same thing, and are sometimes even at cross proposes.
For example we can subject terrorists to harsh interrogations and try and sentence them outside of the normal operation of the law in the hope that this will disrupt terrorist attacks on the homeland – perhaps with great success. But at the same time these methods may supply the same organizations with the basis of propaganda quite effective in “reducing our global influence” – which increases the possibility of such attacks longer term.
Not an easy balance to archive, but one it’s important to consider. And one it’s easier to achieve if you have a highly competent and flexible military able to act effectively when such action is absolutely necessary.
The Election of 2006 proves his point in spades!
Good comments.
At the request of the Bush administration, this year we'll get 2.2% COL increase. This is the same type of annual raise we got during the Clinton administration and is the reason our salaries were terribly low in comparison to the private sector after only a few years. The Bush administration also wanted to raise our TriCare co-pays and raise retirees' TriCare premiums.
Thank you for catching us up, Mr. Bush. But we don't understand why you want us to fall behind again.
It's a tough life. We don't need to be struggling financially on top of everything else.
So what are you doing about it?
No Flame intended.
If this is true, then it's our fault, for not telling people.
Besides praying for God's mercy on this country? I "talk up" the issue as much as I can to whomever I can, even when they roll their eyes at me. I go to troop support rallys whenever I can. I write my elected officials, regardless of their party. When buying umpteen cans of chili at the supermarket for troop care packages, and the cashier, having asked me about it, responds "it's too bad about them being over there," I reply, "If they weren't over there fighting our enemies, we'd be fighting them in the streets here." I think I'm going to have to memorize part of the General's reply and include it in my own.
I "talk up" the issue as much as I can to whomever I can, even when they roll their eyes at me.
Been there, Done that, Got the T-shirt! :-)
Something I like to do is leave articles laying around at (say) work....etc. I don't force the subject, but if it comes up, and it does....
I work with a couple of lefties, they learned long ago to keep their mouths shut about the war (in Iraq or else where) when I'm around, as I obsess on this subject.
I'm a civilian, and I don't get it either.
And what's really puzzling is this: I live in state with two Democratic Senators, in a district represented by one of the most liberal members of congress, in a small city with a major university. It doesn't get more liberal than that outside of San Francisco. And even here the Military (as opposed to it's civilian leadership) is held in probably its highest regard since WWII, and the rest of the country has got to be even more "pro-military" than that - and military families are driving around in 10 year old used cars hoping they don't break down.
The best answer I can give myself (not good enough,IMO) is that that there are a lot of civilian "middle-class" families having a pretty rough time, too.
Actually, in spite of his spec ops background, his branch is Armor. He showed us his ORB one day, lots of "classified assignment" interspersed with trips out to his branch, "Troop commander" "XO" etc. He still had to punch his ticket in his branch, it says something about him that he could be a outstanding spec ops guy, AND do well enough in his original branch to make rank.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.