Thank you, Secretary McHugh. John
was sworn in as secretary of the army last month, and I
speak for the entire Department of Defense in saying
we’re glad to have him onboard. For a decade and a half,
he represented the district that includes Fort Drum. His
support made that installation one of the Army’s best.
Through his work on the House Armed Services Committee –
including as ranking member – he has been a forceful
champion for all soldiers, and I know he will continue
his advocacy on their behalf. Secretary McHugh, thank
you once again for taking on this responsibility.
Although I will tell you, I leaned over to him during
the opening ceremony and said, “beats the hell out of a
committee hearing doesn’t it.”
And of course my warmest thanks to AUSA for
the invitation to attend your annual meeting. It’s a
real honor to speak at the opening of this conference
with its focus on NCOs – the steel spine of the Army. My
first encounter with NCOs came back in January 1967 when
I was a brand new second lieutenant with the Air Force.
It took me all of about a day-and-a-half before I
figured out who it was that really made the military
run, or who at least made us junior officers run: the
noncommissioned officers. So I did what my sergeant
suggested and the two of us did my job pretty well.
Every morning, one of the first
people I see when I walk in my office is an Army NCO.
And, as you might expect, he’s almost always there when
I leave as well: Sergeant Jason Easom, an E-5 who has
been on two tours in Iraq, is here with us today. Jason,
welcome. Thanks for your service.
As Secretary of Defense, I pay every bit as much
attention to what NCOs say now as I did when I was a
very green second lieutenant. I always make it a point
to meet with and listen to NCOs around the country and
in the theater – where they are serving with such honor
and distinction. Last month, I had the opportunity to
attend the Medal of Honor ceremony for Army Sergeant
First Class Jared Monti, the second Army NCO to receive
the Medal of Honor during the recent conflicts. His is a
story of true valor. And there are so many others. And
in fact, it is hard to believe that only six Medals of
Honor have been bestowed since 2001 – all posthumously.
With all that our nation has asked of the Army in
recent years – and all that troops like Sergeant Monti
have given – it is important for our soldiers to know
that they have such a strong advocate in this
organization. For more than half a century, AUSA
chapters across the country, and the headquarters here,
have aided the troops and the families at home and –
especially relevant today – when our soldiers are
deployed. This takes many forms, from care packages to
family-support conferences to scholarship donations –
all unified by a single purpose: giving our soldiers and
their families the support they have earned.
I spoke to this gathering in 2007, less than a year
after I became secretary of defense. There’s an old
saying about the one-year mark in Washington. For the
first six months, you wonder how the hell you got here.
For the next six months, you wonder how the hell the
rest of them got here. I might add that, after nearly
three years, you start wondering how the hell you’re
still here.
Much has happened since I last spoke with you, from
the changing nature of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
to the economic crisis facing our country. Of course, we
have a new commander-in-chief. I can tell you that
President Obama is committed to the well-being of every
soldier and to making sure they have the tools to do
their job. And the First Lady has made it a personal
priority to support and champion our military families.
If you had asked me in October of 2007 if I would be
addressing this forum two years later – still as
secretary of defense – I would have told you you were
crazy. But, when President Obama asked me to stay on, I
thought about all the troops we have in combat who are
serving their country far from home and often under
fire. I thought especially about the soldiers who have
borne the brunt of the wars with repeated and lengthy
tours – who continue to re-enlist and redeploy with a
great sense of purpose in their mission and a great
sense of pride in their country. I thought about their
sacrifices and the sacrifices of their families. I
thought about all those things and knew that I could
only say yes to the new president. Our troops are all
doing their duty. And I had to do mine. And having the
chance to serve with them is the greatest – and most
humbling – experience and honor of my life.
Today, I want to talk about the Army: the current
challenges we face; what the Department of Defense is
doing for our soldiers right now and what it needs to do
in the future; and, finally, some thoughts about where
the service needs to go in the years ahead.
First, however, a few words about the campaigns in
Iraq and Afghanistan. As you know, in June, the U.S.
mission in Iraq underwent a sea change as we turned
security in urban areas over to the Iraqis. That was a
significant step as we dramatically reduce our presence
early next year following elections, and continue to
shift to a purely advise and assist mission. General
Odierno said last week that violence is down 85 percent
over the past two years – an accomplishment made
possible by the hard work and sacrifices of many
thousands of U.S. soldiers.
At the same time, Afghanistan has been on a
different, and worrisome, trajectory – with violence
levels up some 60 percent from last year. I believe that
the decisions that the president will make for the next
stage of the Afghanistan campaign will be among the most
important of his presidency. So it is important that we
take our time do all we can to get this right. And in
this process it is imperative that all of us taking part
in these deliberations – civilian and military alike –
provide our best advice to the president candidly but
privately. And speaking for the Department of Defense,
once the commander-in-chief makes his decisions, we will
salute and execute those decisions faithfully and to the
best of our ability.
Even as we consider the future, I am prepared to
respond to urgent needs and will keep pushing to get
troops the equipment they need. IEDs remain the
number-one cause of casualties in Afghanistan. And let
there be no doubt that, as long as our troops are in
harm’s way, the Department will do everything it can to
destroy these IED networks and to protect those heroes
in the fight. To accomplish this:
• I have ordered additional intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities to
Afghanistan – including the most advanced drones and new
platforms such as the MC-12;
• Thousands of enablers, including additional EOD
teams, are en route; and
• The first MRAPs designed specifically for
Afghanistan’s rugged terrain – the M-ATVs – were
delivered to theater last week, only three months after
the initial contracts were awarded. In the next year, we
will field thousands of these life-saving vehicles.
Our nation is understandably weary after six years
in Iraq and eight years in Afghanistan. Of course, the
challenges America faces in these campaigns are
reflected back here in the demands placed on an Army
under strain. Easing that strain and getting the troops
what they need drove many of the changes reflected in
the Fiscal Year 2010 budget. The broad goal was to
improve and institutionalize support for troops and
their families, rebalance the Department to address a
wider range of threats, and, correspondingly, reform how
and what we buy.
Let me start with some of the programs we have to
support families. We all know the old saying that you
recruit the soldier, but you re-enlist the family.
• The base budget we submitted earlier this year
includes $9 billion for family support: child care,
spousal services, and housing, among others. Perhaps
more important, we shifted funds from supplemental war
bills to the base budget – to ensure that these family
programs won’t go away when the wars do.
• Another change is the new GI
Bill – approved by Congress last year and just coming on
line. The generous benefits are a just reward for our
service members and a badly-needed update to the old GI
Bill. Also, for the first time, troops can transfer
benefits to family members – an idea I pushed at the
suggestion of an Army spouse at Fort Hood. On that
point, I should note that I always value meeting with
Army spouses because, as you are well aware, they are
never afraid to speak their minds.
• At the same time, we have added
funds for the wounded, ill, and injured; traumatic brain
injury; and psychological health programs to make sure
our troops get the care they need when they return home.
This includes a major effort by the Army to educate the
force to prevent suicides and address the unseen wounds
of war – to approach mental health in much the same way
as physical health. The dramatic rise in suicides is a
huge concern of mine – and I take heart that the Army is
every bit as concerned. The vice chief of staff is
spearheading the service’s effort to reduce suicide, and
I can tell you that it is both General Casey’s and
General Chiarelli’s personal mission to address this
problem. Aside from the conflicts themselves, taking
care of our wounded warriors must be our highest
priority.
• The Department of Defense is
doing more for military families than it ever has. And
yet, when I visit bases around the country, there is
often a disconnect. I
believe we must do a better job delivering assistance –
especially new programs – to those who need it most. We
have to make it easier for them to know what’s out there
so they can take advantage of these initiatives.
Strong recruiting and retention – though influenced
by the economy – continue to show the willingness of
young Americans to serve:
• The active Army has surpassed recruiting and
retention goals recently, allowing the service to reach
its goal of enlarging to 547,000 soldiers earlier this
year. Considering the stress on the force, and upcoming
deployment rotations, I’ve also authorized a temporary
expansion of an additional 22,000 soldiers to get
through this high-demand period. This temporary increase
will not add new force structure but will fill out the
units we already have. The goal is to end stop-loss and
increase dwell time.
• The Army has eliminated most
waivers, and this year will exceed 90 percent for the
number of recruits with high-school diplomas.
• And finally, efforts continue
to make this a single Army, with the Guard and Reserves
receiving the comparable training and the same equipment
as the active force. Though the pace and types of
missions will change, the reserve components’
operational responsibilities will continue.
Even with all these efforts to mitigate the stress
on the force, the reality is that a significant numbers
of soldiers will continue to be deployed for the near-
to mid-term. In fact, right now there are more soldiers
in Iraq and Afghanistan combined than were deployed to
those two countries during the height of the Iraq surge.
America’s soldiers continue to excel on the
battlefield – doing extraordinary things under
incredible pressure. As we look to the future, it is the
great innovation and shifts in the Army these last few
years – institutionally and operationally – that must
guide the service going forward. What have we learned in
the last few years and how is it relevant to the
potential conflicts of tomorrow?
The challenge I posed to the Army two years ago was
to retain the lessons learned and capabilities gained in
counterinsurgency and irregular warfare. From all I’ve
seen, heard, and witnessed, that certainly has taken
place. In fact, today’s Army bears but a passing
resemblance to that of eight years ago – a force mostly
designed to repeat another Desert Storm. The Army we
have is a supremely adaptable and flexible force – able
to deploy rapidly, operate with more autonomy, and slide
along the scale of the conflict spectrum to confront
very different types of threats.
Let me give a few examples.
First of all, on the technological side. There have
been tremendous advances in our intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities – advances
that have led to an unprecedented fusion of intelligence
and ops on the ground. Other communications improvements
have led to much greater command and control, and more
tools to improve this further are getting out to the
field. The Army has recognized that the most important
part of its procurement strategy is the network as
opposed to the platform. In coming years, there should
be revolutionary breakthroughs in the ability of our
troops to see themselves and other allied forces – even
if the inevitable fog of war and resourceful enemies
prevent us from ever achieving total situational
awareness.
There have also been entirely new concepts from the
war zones. One of the most important is the Advise and
Assist Brigade – the AAB – that has three main
functions: traditional strike capabilities, advisory
roles, and the enablers and command and control to
support both functions. In July, I visited the first AAB
deployed to Iraq. I was impressed with the ability to
retool a standard brigade combat team in only a few
months and with relatively small force augmentation. By
the end of next year, we plan for the Iraq mission to be
composed almost entirely of AABs, and the expectation is
that, some time down the road, the same will be true in
Afghanistan.
There is, unfortunately, still a lingering view that
advisory positions are second-tier jobs – an assumption
that needs to be addressed through assignments and
promotions. The advisory, train, and equip mission is a
key role for the Army going forward, given that
America’s security will increasingly depend on our
ability to build the capabilities of other nations.
These capabilities are all the more necessary
considering the steep human, political, and financial
costs of direct U.S. military intervention.
Under the leadership of General Dempsey, the Army
has also put its training and doctrine process on a war
footing. At the Combined Arms Center, the doctrinal
cycle has been reduced dramatically. For example, the
AAB doctrine was developed and fielded in only a couple
of months – proof that the Army has accelerated its
ability to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances. This
is a key advantage not just in a counterinsurgency, but
in any type of conflict, where the 75 percent solution
fielded in months is often far better than a 99 percent
solution that might take years. We cannot allow the
Army’s ability to swiftly adapt at the institutional
level to become ossified down the line.
Perhaps the greatest change, however, is on the
ground level with the men and women on the front lines.
Young officers and NCOs at the front have always had to
make profound life-and-death decisions. In today’s
conflicts, their responsibilities are even greater and
more complex: playing the roles of warrior, diplomat,
mayor, economist, city engineer, and tribal liaison –
all often at the same time. We must ensure that the kind
of mental agility, entrepreneurial spirit, and
independent judgment required to be effective downrange
carries over into future assignments. It’s a safe bet
that a leader who thrives in an environment of this
complexity can adapt quickly to other missions and other
forms of war. But, looking forward, we must find a way
to retain seasoned young officers and NCOs and give them
opportunities to use these same talents when they move
on from combat positions of momentous responsibility to
more mundane assignments in the bureaucracy. Their
battlefield experience must form the core of an Army
prepared to fight wars in the future.
That brings me to a larger point. For the last few
years, there has been a concern that our force is too
focused on counterinsurgency, and has lost its edge for
complex, conventional operations involving multiple
brigades or divisions. The experiences of the British
colonial army before World War One and the Israeli
military in Lebanon have even been cited.
This is a legitimate concern, and we continue to
work toward finding the right balance. But the notion
that the changes we have seen amount to turning the Army
into some sort of counterinsurgency constabulary that is
losing its core competencies – above all, to shoot,
move, and communicate – does not reflect the realities
of the current campaigns. Take, for example, the battle
of Sadr City last year. In that campaign, U.S. troops
had to synchronize air power, artillery, and ISR, all
while maneuvering through an incredibly complex urban
environment and coordinating with numerous dispersed
units.
And let there be no doubt that modernization plans
for the full spectrum of warfare continue. The Army is
accelerating the development of the Warfighter
Information Network and will field it – and proven FCS
spinoffs – across the entire force. I remain committed
to the Army’s ground-vehicle modernization program – but
it has to be done in a way that reflects the lessons
we’ve learned the last few years about war in the 21st
century, and that incorporates the Department of
Defense’s nearly $30 billion investment in MRAPs.
We have to recognize that the black-and-white
distinction between conventional war and irregular war
is an outdated model. Simply possessing the ability to
annihilate other militaries in a conventional fight in
no way insures we can achieve our strategic goals – a
point driven home in both Iraq and Afghanistan. In
reality, the future will be more complex. Where all
conflict will range across a broad spectrum of
operations and lethality. Where even near-peer
competitors will use irregular or asymmetric tactics and
non-state actors may have weapons of mass destruction or
sophisticated missiles.
Even as we prepare for the future and pursue
modernization plans, we must always recognize the limits
of technology – and be modest about what military force
alone can accomplish. Advances in precision, sensor
information, and satellite technologies have led to
extraordinary gains that will continue to give the U.S.
military an edge over its adversaries. But no one should
ever neglect the psychological, cultural, political, and
human dimensions of war or succumb to the
techno-optimism that has muddled strategic thinking in
the past. That is especially true for the ground
services, which will be in the lead for – and bear the
brunt of – irregular and hybrid campaigns in the future.
Let me close with a final thought. For eight years
now, the Army has been in a constant state of war. Our
soldiers have been deployed over and over again, and
taken the fight to increasingly battle-hardened and
lethal enemies. The stakes have been enormous; the tales
of heroism and sacrifice extraordinary. Hundreds of
thousands of brave warriors have volunteered to serve
their country knowing they probably would go to war.
They have endured time away from family and friends. And
they have risked their lives for their fellow soldiers.
There is no way to overstate the challenges facing
our Army. But when I think about the individual soldiers
– their honor and their courage – I am confident that
the United States Army will continue to meet those
challenges and – as always – exceed every expectation in
the years ahead.
Thank you.