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.
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.