Speech from the CNO
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 161
Likes: 1
From: In the middle of Weather Dry Creek Farm in Avilla, Arkansas
Speech from the CNO
Good read.
America's military can win wars. We've done it in the past, and I have
absolute confidence that we'll continue to do it in the future. We've won
fights in which we possessed overwhelming technological superiority
(Desert Storm), as well as conflicts in which we were the technical
underdogs (the American Revolution). We've crossed swords with
numerically superior foes, and with militaries a fraction of the size of
our own. We've battled on our own soil, and on the soil of foreign
lands -- on the sea, under the sea, and in the skies. We've even engaged
in a bit of cyber-combat, way out there on the electronic frontier. At
one time or another, we've done battle under just about every
circumstance imaginable, armed with everything from muskets to cruise
missiles. And, somehow, we've managed to do it all with the wrong Army.
That's right, America has the wrong Army. I don't know how it happened,
but it did. We have the wrong Army. It's too small; it's not deployed
properly; it's inadequately trained, and it doesn't have the right sort
of logistical support. It's a shambles. I have no idea how those guys
even manage to fight.
Now, before my brothers and sisters of the OD green persuasion get their
fur up, I have another revelation for you. We also have the wrong Navy.
And if you want to get down to brass tacks, we've got the wrong Air
Force, the wrong Marine Corps, and the wrong Coast Guard.
Don't believe me? Pick up a newspaper or turn on your television. In the
past week, I've watched or read at least a dozen commentaries on the
strength, size, and deployment of our military forces. All of our uniform
services get called on the carpet for different reasons, but our critics
unanimously agree that we're doing pretty much everything wrong.
I think it's sort of a game. The critics won't tell you what the game is
called, so I've taken the liberty of naming it myself. I call it the 'No
Right Answer' game. It's easy to play, and it must be a lot of fun
because politicos and journalists can't stop playing it.
I'll teach you the rules. Here's Rule #1: No matter how the U.S. military
is organized, it's the wrong force. Actually, that's the only rule in
this game. We don't really need any other rules, because that one applies
in all possible situations. Allow me to demonstrate... If the Air Force's
fighter jets are showing their age, critics will tell us that Air Force
leaders are mismanaging their assets, and endangering the safety of their
personnel. If the Air Force attempts to procure new fighter jets, they
are shopping for toys and that money could be spent better elsewhere. Are
you getting the hang of the game yet? It's easy; keeping old planes is
the wrong answer,but getting new planes is also the wrong answer.
There is no right answer, not ever.
Isn't that fun? It works everywhere. When the Army is small, it's TOO
small. Then we start to hear phrases like 'over-extended' or 'spread too
thin,' and the integrity of our national defense is called into question.
When the Army is large, it's TOO large, and it's an unnecessary drain
on our economy. Terms like 'dead weight,' and 'dead wood' get thrown around.
I know what you're thinking. We could build a medium-sized Army, and
everyone would be happy. Think again. A medium-sized Army is too small to
deal with large scale conflicts, and too large to keep military spending
properly muzzled. The naysayers will attack any middle of the road
solution anyway, on the grounds that it lacks a coherent strategy. So
small is wrong, large is wrong, and medium-sized is also wrong. Now
you're starting to understand the game. Is this fun, or what?
No branch of the military is exempt. When the Navy builds aircraft
carriers, we are told that we really need small, fast multipurpose ships.
When the Navy builds small, fast multi-mission ships (aka the Arleigh
Burke class), we're told that blue water ships are poorly suited for
littoral combat, and we really need brown water combat ships. The Navy's
answer, the Littoral Combat, isn't even off the drawing boards yet, and
the critics are already calling it pork barrel politics and questioning
the need for such technology. Now I've gone nose-to-nose with hostiles in
the littoral waters of the Persian Gulf, and I can't recall that pork or
politics ever entered into the conversation. In fact, I'd have to say
that the people trying to kill me and my shipmates were positively
disinterested in the internal wrangling of our military procurement process.
But, had they been aware of our organizational folly, they could have hurled a few
well-timed criticisms our way, to go along with the mines we were trying
to dodge.
The fun never stops when we play the 'No Right Answer' game. If we
centralize our military infrastructure, the experts tell us that we are
vulnerable to attack. We're inviting another Pearl Harbor. If we
decentralize our infrastructure, we're sloppy and overbuilt, and the BRAC
experts break out the calculators and start dismantling what they call
our excess physical capacity.' If we leave our infrastructure unchanged,
we are accused of becoming stagnant in a dynamic world environment.
Even the lessons of history are not sacrosanct. When we learn from the
mistakes we made in past wars, we are accused of failing to adapt to
emerging realities. When we shift our eyes toward the future, the critics
quickly tell us that we've forgotten our history and we are therefore
doomed to repeat it. If we somehow manage to assimilate both past lessons
and emerging threats, we're informed that we lack focus.
Where does it come from: This default assumption that we are doing the
wrong thing, no matter what we happen to be doing? How did our military
wind up in a zero-sum game? We can prevail on the field of battle, but we
can't win a war of words where the overriding assumption is that we are
always in the wrong.
I can't think of a single point in history where our forces were of the
correct size, the correct composition, correctly deployed, and
appropriately trained all at the same time. Pick a war, any war. (For
that matter, pick any period of peace.) Then dig up as many official and
unofficial historical documents, reports, reconstructions, and
commentaries as you can. For every unbiased account you uncover, you'll
find three commentaries by revisionist historians who cannot wait to tell
you how badly the U.S. military bungled things.
To hear the naysayers tell it, we could take lessons in organization and
leadership from the Keystone Cops.
We really only have one defense against this sort of mudslinging,
success. When we fight, we win, and that's got to count for something.
When asked to comment on Operation Desert Storm, the U.S. Army's
Lieutenant General Tom Kelly reportedly said, "Iraq went from the
fourth-largest army in the world, to the second-largest army in Iraq in 100 hours."
In my opinion, it's hard to argue with that kind of success, but critics
weren't fazed by it. Because no matter how well we fought,
we did it with the wrong Army.
I'd like to close with an invitation to those journalists, analysts,
experts and politicians who sit up at night dreaming up new ways to
criticize our armed forces. The next time you see a man or woman in
uniform, stop for ten seconds and reflect upon how much you owe that
person, and his or her fellow Sailors, Marines, Soldiers, and Airmen.
Then say, "Thank you." I'm betting you won't even have to explain the
reason. Our Service members are not blind or stupid. They know what
they're risking. They know what they're sacrificing. They've weighed
their wants, their needs, and their personal safety against the needs of
their nation, and made the decision to serve. They know that they deserve
our gratitude, even if they rarely receive it.
Two words -- that's all I ask. "Thank you." If that's too hard, if you
can't bring yourself to acknowledge the dedication, sincerity and
sacrifice of your defenders, then I have a backup plan for you. Put on a
uniform and show us how to do it right.
ADM Michael G. Mullen USN Chief of Naval Operations
America's military can win wars. We've done it in the past, and I have
absolute confidence that we'll continue to do it in the future. We've won
fights in which we possessed overwhelming technological superiority
(Desert Storm), as well as conflicts in which we were the technical
underdogs (the American Revolution). We've crossed swords with
numerically superior foes, and with militaries a fraction of the size of
our own. We've battled on our own soil, and on the soil of foreign
lands -- on the sea, under the sea, and in the skies. We've even engaged
in a bit of cyber-combat, way out there on the electronic frontier. At
one time or another, we've done battle under just about every
circumstance imaginable, armed with everything from muskets to cruise
missiles. And, somehow, we've managed to do it all with the wrong Army.
That's right, America has the wrong Army. I don't know how it happened,
but it did. We have the wrong Army. It's too small; it's not deployed
properly; it's inadequately trained, and it doesn't have the right sort
of logistical support. It's a shambles. I have no idea how those guys
even manage to fight.
Now, before my brothers and sisters of the OD green persuasion get their
fur up, I have another revelation for you. We also have the wrong Navy.
And if you want to get down to brass tacks, we've got the wrong Air
Force, the wrong Marine Corps, and the wrong Coast Guard.
Don't believe me? Pick up a newspaper or turn on your television. In the
past week, I've watched or read at least a dozen commentaries on the
strength, size, and deployment of our military forces. All of our uniform
services get called on the carpet for different reasons, but our critics
unanimously agree that we're doing pretty much everything wrong.
I think it's sort of a game. The critics won't tell you what the game is
called, so I've taken the liberty of naming it myself. I call it the 'No
Right Answer' game. It's easy to play, and it must be a lot of fun
because politicos and journalists can't stop playing it.
I'll teach you the rules. Here's Rule #1: No matter how the U.S. military
is organized, it's the wrong force. Actually, that's the only rule in
this game. We don't really need any other rules, because that one applies
in all possible situations. Allow me to demonstrate... If the Air Force's
fighter jets are showing their age, critics will tell us that Air Force
leaders are mismanaging their assets, and endangering the safety of their
personnel. If the Air Force attempts to procure new fighter jets, they
are shopping for toys and that money could be spent better elsewhere. Are
you getting the hang of the game yet? It's easy; keeping old planes is
the wrong answer,but getting new planes is also the wrong answer.
There is no right answer, not ever.
Isn't that fun? It works everywhere. When the Army is small, it's TOO
small. Then we start to hear phrases like 'over-extended' or 'spread too
thin,' and the integrity of our national defense is called into question.
When the Army is large, it's TOO large, and it's an unnecessary drain
on our economy. Terms like 'dead weight,' and 'dead wood' get thrown around.
I know what you're thinking. We could build a medium-sized Army, and
everyone would be happy. Think again. A medium-sized Army is too small to
deal with large scale conflicts, and too large to keep military spending
properly muzzled. The naysayers will attack any middle of the road
solution anyway, on the grounds that it lacks a coherent strategy. So
small is wrong, large is wrong, and medium-sized is also wrong. Now
you're starting to understand the game. Is this fun, or what?
No branch of the military is exempt. When the Navy builds aircraft
carriers, we are told that we really need small, fast multipurpose ships.
When the Navy builds small, fast multi-mission ships (aka the Arleigh
Burke class), we're told that blue water ships are poorly suited for
littoral combat, and we really need brown water combat ships. The Navy's
answer, the Littoral Combat, isn't even off the drawing boards yet, and
the critics are already calling it pork barrel politics and questioning
the need for such technology. Now I've gone nose-to-nose with hostiles in
the littoral waters of the Persian Gulf, and I can't recall that pork or
politics ever entered into the conversation. In fact, I'd have to say
that the people trying to kill me and my shipmates were positively
disinterested in the internal wrangling of our military procurement process.
But, had they been aware of our organizational folly, they could have hurled a few
well-timed criticisms our way, to go along with the mines we were trying
to dodge.
The fun never stops when we play the 'No Right Answer' game. If we
centralize our military infrastructure, the experts tell us that we are
vulnerable to attack. We're inviting another Pearl Harbor. If we
decentralize our infrastructure, we're sloppy and overbuilt, and the BRAC
experts break out the calculators and start dismantling what they call
our excess physical capacity.' If we leave our infrastructure unchanged,
we are accused of becoming stagnant in a dynamic world environment.
Even the lessons of history are not sacrosanct. When we learn from the
mistakes we made in past wars, we are accused of failing to adapt to
emerging realities. When we shift our eyes toward the future, the critics
quickly tell us that we've forgotten our history and we are therefore
doomed to repeat it. If we somehow manage to assimilate both past lessons
and emerging threats, we're informed that we lack focus.
Where does it come from: This default assumption that we are doing the
wrong thing, no matter what we happen to be doing? How did our military
wind up in a zero-sum game? We can prevail on the field of battle, but we
can't win a war of words where the overriding assumption is that we are
always in the wrong.
I can't think of a single point in history where our forces were of the
correct size, the correct composition, correctly deployed, and
appropriately trained all at the same time. Pick a war, any war. (For
that matter, pick any period of peace.) Then dig up as many official and
unofficial historical documents, reports, reconstructions, and
commentaries as you can. For every unbiased account you uncover, you'll
find three commentaries by revisionist historians who cannot wait to tell
you how badly the U.S. military bungled things.
To hear the naysayers tell it, we could take lessons in organization and
leadership from the Keystone Cops.
We really only have one defense against this sort of mudslinging,
success. When we fight, we win, and that's got to count for something.
When asked to comment on Operation Desert Storm, the U.S. Army's
Lieutenant General Tom Kelly reportedly said, "Iraq went from the
fourth-largest army in the world, to the second-largest army in Iraq in 100 hours."
In my opinion, it's hard to argue with that kind of success, but critics
weren't fazed by it. Because no matter how well we fought,
we did it with the wrong Army.
I'd like to close with an invitation to those journalists, analysts,
experts and politicians who sit up at night dreaming up new ways to
criticize our armed forces. The next time you see a man or woman in
uniform, stop for ten seconds and reflect upon how much you owe that
person, and his or her fellow Sailors, Marines, Soldiers, and Airmen.
Then say, "Thank you." I'm betting you won't even have to explain the
reason. Our Service members are not blind or stupid. They know what
they're risking. They know what they're sacrificing. They've weighed
their wants, their needs, and their personal safety against the needs of
their nation, and made the decision to serve. They know that they deserve
our gratitude, even if they rarely receive it.
Two words -- that's all I ask. "Thank you." If that's too hard, if you
can't bring yourself to acknowledge the dedication, sincerity and
sacrifice of your defenders, then I have a backup plan for you. Put on a
uniform and show us how to do it right.
ADM Michael G. Mullen USN Chief of Naval Operations
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,178
Likes: 0
From: Gretna, Louisiana
That's telling it like it is. I'm really surpised that some of them media folks over there in IRAQ haven't been shot yet. I really don't care who does it either! 
More importantly, this American say THANKS to all of our soliders.
More importantly, this American say THANKS to all of our soliders.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post