FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE |
Contact: Lara Battles or |
Wednesday, September 28, 2005 |
Whitney Frost (202)225-2876 |
SKELTON: TRANSITION TO THE INFORMATION AGE DEMANDS
IMPROVEMENTS TO PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION SYSTEM
Young Americans Must Be Asked to Enter Military Service, Says Skelton
Washington, DC – Congressman Ike Skelton (D-MO), the Ranking Democrat on
the House Armed Services Committee, delivered the closing address at the 2005
Dwight D. Eisenhower National Security Conference in Washington, DC.
In a speech entitled “Beyond Iraq”, Skelton discussed the challenges that face
the United States in the future. In an effort to meet those challenges, the U.S. military
is in a transition from the machine age to the information age. Technological
advancements are important, but ultimately it is the quality of our men and women in
uniform that gives us the warfighting edge. The human dimension of military
transformation must be a priority and this must include a campaign of national
leadership to convince young people to contribute to America’s future by entering
military service.
A copy of Skelton’s remarks is attached.
“Beyond Iraq”
Remarks of Congressman Ike Skelton (D-MO)
Ranking Democrat, House Armed Services Committee
Dwight D. Eisenhower National Security Conference
Washington, DC -- September 28, 2005
Thank you for inviting me to speak at this important conference. I am honored to
have the opportunity to share my views on some of the national security issues that
demand our attention and on what we must do to support and nurture the exceptional
military leaders we depend upon now and will continue to call upon in the decades to
come.
When I was first elected to Congress, I was invited to speak to a group of first
graders in Independence, Missouri. Two of my staffers accompanied me, and due to
the cold weather, they both wore trench coats. After trying to explain my work in
Congress to the first grade class, I agreed to take some questions. One young student
raised his hand, pointed to my staff, and asked, “Are those your bodyguards?” The
next student asked, “Do you know Robert E. Lee?” As you will note, I will quote Robert
E. Lee a bit later.
A number of years ago, when I addressed military audiences concerning the
need to reform the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the need for more jointness, which of
course culminated in the law known as the Goldwater-Nichols Act, many of my listeners
reacted as if I had given them a dose of castor oil. After my comments today, some
may think that my bottle of castor oil is not quite empty.
Today, our remarkable men and women in uniform are fighting the war in Iraq
and the war against terror in Afghanistan. They are pursuing terrorists all over the
globe, and they are cleaning up along the Gulf Coast. These campaigns and actions,
like the scores of operations before them, demonstrate why our service people deserve
their reputation as the world’s finest military. They are serving every day around the
world under the most difficult of circumstances.
It is true that some of those challenges -- particularly Iraq, but also the clean up
after the hurricane -- have been made more difficult by the lack of strategic planning.
Mistakes have been made. I have spoken about that elsewhere and some of the time
my warnings have fallen on deaf ears. But that doesn’t mean I don’t want our efforts to
succeed. And while the wars we’re fighting today demand our focus, we need to be
careful that we don’t become so myopic that we fail to see what else is out there. There
are great challenges ahead as we think about the future.
We must, therefore, look beyond Iraq. This is not because Iraq does not have
strategic importance. It does. And if we fail in Iraq, we will be left with a snake pit of
terrorism worse than Taliban-era Afghanistan. It is because there are other challenges
on the horizon that have the potential to pose even greater threats if allowed to
develop. Our national power can be used to enormous good -- we have a tremendous
ability to prevent and defuse conflict. But we must be looking ahead to see any
confrontations looming.
I don’t want to belabor this point, but just the threats we know make this a
complex world. For example, the struggle against radical Islamists will be with us for
decades. This radicalized group includes only a segment of those faithful to Islam, but
the war in Iraq has made our efforts to work with the Arab and Muslim worlds more
difficult. We face the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to states like Iran
and North Korea that risk destabilizing regions and threatening our interests and our
friends. Terrorists are seeking these weapons too and that may be the most dangerous
threat of all. Weapons of mass destruction will arrive on our own doorstep, with
devastating effect, if we cannot prevent it.
At the same time, we must be prepared for traditional state conflict, even while
we work to avoid it. There are many examples, but the one that strikes me most is
China. I traveled to China earlier this year, and I remain convinced that the Taiwan
Strait is the most dangerous part of the world today. But, China poses greater strategic
challenges for us.
They study us rigorously, consistently, and in tremendous detail. Beyond that,
they are developing a system of strategic relationships through aid and military-to-
military ties, particularly in areas where we have pulled back, such as parts of Africa,
and in Central and South America. China, along with Russia, is exerting influence
among the small states of Central Asia.
They are going to great lengths to steal American technology. Their shipbuilding
has grown by leaps and bounds, and they are producing world class fighter jets. Their
missile technology is steadily improving, and of course they are a nuclear power. It is by
no means ordained that we will fight China. But they are making every preparation for
the day when they may have to fight us. They speak our language, and their officers
have studied our doctrine and tactics
That is just to name a few of the challenges before us. And with that said, I do
not want to follow on with some statement like, “now that we know what we are facing,”
because we don’t know. I am sure I have missed some obvious threats. If history is
any guide, we should expect that something out there is waiting for us that no one has
imagined yet.
Let’s return for a moment to the two biggest challenges facing us today: the
ongoing insurgency in Iraq and the aftermath of the recent hurricanes, Katrina and Rita.
The ferocity of both was unexpected, and the nature of the crises they represent has
been determined by a full range of human interactions. This is not two great armies
clashing on an open battlefield somewhere, each uniformly executing the will of a
national power. We can probably handle that. This is about thousands, millions of
people who come together, form associations, act, disband, and reform, seeking to
fulfill their hierarchy of needs. They engage in commerce, political activity, organized
violence, and unorganized violence – the whole range of human activity.
In the case of Iraq, that is layered on top of an additional national or quasi-
national military competition of sorts. In the case of Katrina, it is layered on top of a
region somewhat underwater and left without even the most rudimentary infrastructure.
These human interactions cause great uncertainty surrounding our military efforts. This
is why success is not just a matter of doctrine or technology, but achieved also because
our military understands people, cultures, and the root causes of problems or conflict.
And, although both the insurgency in Iraq and the consequences of a massive
hurricane were forecast with some accuracy by certain experts, neither were adequately
anticipated or planned for at the national level. The result is that burden of response
and execution falls upon our men and women in uniform. And they are performing
magnificently, in many cases making up for a lack of strategic foresight with an
abundance of energy and common sense. But as we know, it has not gone flawlessly.
This is not due to a lack of a good faith effort on the part of our soldiers, but it is instead
because they have been at times ill-equipped, intellectually, for the challenges we have
placed before them.
I recently had the occasion to walk the battlefields at Gettysburg. I have done
that several times before, but this time I was accompanied by Major General Robert
Scales, the former Commandant of the Army War College. Bob is a great American
and a master historian and this is what he told me: On the afternoon of July 3rd, 1863,
as broken units and bleeding men streamed past General Robert E. Lee during their
retreat back across the bloody field now known as Pickett’s Charge, he greeted them
solemnly. “I’m sorry,” he said. “It is my fault.”
In contrast, two days earlier, on July 1st, Federal troops were retreating back
through Gettysburg toward Cemetery Ridge. A Confederate victory seemed certain.
The next day, General Longstreet, commanding one of Lee’s Corps, argued that they
should use the superior mobility of Lee’s army to maneuver between the Union forces
and their supply lines. Longstreet reasoned that an attack on the rail and telegraph
lines to the north would cut off the Union forces’ supply lines and communications links,
and would force the Union to abandon its position and attack Lee across open ground.
But Lee was not persuaded. Instead, he ordered Longstreet to make a frontal
attack against the Union left and to take heights at Little Roundtop. That decision cost
Lee a third of his force. Unable to grasp the significance of what had just happened,
Lee again ordered a frontal attack the next day, this time on the Union center. The
results of Pickett’s Charge are well known.
So, how is it possible that Lee, arguably the greatest general in the history of the
United States, found himself on July 3rd looking into the eyes of his defeated soldiers
when victory had seemed so certain just two days before? Quite simply, Lee stood
astride a transitional period, as warfare moved out of the agrarian age and into the
machine age. New technologies such as the rifled musket, the train, and the telegraph
were quickly changing the science of warfare, and Lee was unable to update his
understanding of the art of warfare as rapidly.
Today, we stand astride a similar transitional period, as the machine age moves
into the information age. New technologies are increasing our military capability almost
daily. But new technologies are also empowering real and potential adversaries in
unpredictable ways. When we consider these technologies are spread across the
security landscape I outlined a moment ago, the result is an exponential increase in the
complexity of the modern battlefield. To that we must add the dimension of human
interactions I described when discussing Iraq and Katrina. People are coming together
in new ways as information technologies enable new forms of dynamic social, political,
and economic interactions. For many, this is a welcome change that holds great
promise. But for some, this change represents something to fear.
Which brings me to my real point: the challenges before us place an enormous
intellectual demand upon our military professionals. Their understanding of the art of
war today is pretty good. Tomorrow it must be even better. The employment of a joint
force, successful across the full range of military tasks and at every subordinate level,
demonstrates today’s height of expertise. Tomorrow, our forces must continue to
perform with the same proficiency, but their task will be complicated by two factors:
1)
our transition to the information age, and
2) our global relationships in regions of
potential conflict.
Most of you understand this, either intuitively or as the result of your recent
combat experiences. Generally speaking, the language the Services use to describe
the requirement for high quality people recognizes the need for this sort of change. I
hear a lot about the importance of qualities such as vision, innovation, agility,
adaptability, creativity, wisdom, as our soldiers adapt to the pace and lethality of the
twenty-first century battlefield.
I see an enormous effort on the part of all the Services to pursue new
information age technologies as a means to further the science of warfare, and that is
important. We need to ensure that our Air Force can establish and maintain global air
dominance. Our Navy needs additional ships to control the seas and patrol the littorals.
The Army is proceeding with the development of the Future Combat System.
But in our urgency to adopt technological transformation, I fear we are neglecting
the human side of the equation. We are devoting enormous amounts of money and
talent to advance our weapons technologies, but I do not see a similar commitment to
advance our service men and women’s understanding of the art of warfare. While I do
not pretend to understand the Future Combat System in all its complexity, I do know
that it will be useless unless it is employed by those who understand how to use it
effectively on the battlefield.
We spend a lot of time talking about new technologies, new platforms, and new
gadgets. The reasons for that are pretty simple. First, of course, there is always a
constituency somewhere whose interests are intertwined with the sale of a particular
piece of equipment. The second reason is that it makes it easy to quantify the increase
in capability we are buying. Twice as fast. Five times the range. Ten times the
payload. This is especially appealing to those who have only a rudimentary
understanding of warfare, because how do you quantify the value of a Lee? Or of an
Abizaid, for that matter?
Imagine what might happen if a Rembrandt received a box of 16 crayons, and an
average Joe was given a full palette of oil paints, easel, and canvas. Which one is
more likely to produce a work of art? The analogy may not exactly fit, but the point is
clear – the tools matter less than the talent, training, and dedication that create the art.
You can’t have a masterpiece without a master. I think we forget that sometimes in the
realm of warfare.
If the complexity of the modern battlefield requires a deeper understanding of the
operational art of war, we must push the joint professional military education system to
meet that need. Today, the system is adequate, but it needs to get better. It must be
rigorous and robust. It must give students the intellectual tools they need to fight the
next war – not the war they are fighting today. The time spent at professional military
schools needs to be longer – not shorter.
I will believe that the Services understand this message when I see student
performance in their PME systems start to matter. Sure, selection matters. You need
to go to this Staff College or that War College to get promoted. But where does
intellectual performance matter? I assure you that performance matters in non-military
professions. For instance, top law firms recruit only the top law school students, not
mere law school graduates. Perfomance ought to make a difference in a military career
as well.
Because complex modern battlefields will likely be defined by many types of
human interactions in the broad range of regions and circumstances I described a
moment ago, our forces must develop greater cross-cultural understanding at all levels.
Accessions policies should reflect that need. Perhaps we should require future officer
candidates to study a relevant foreign language as a pre-commissioning requirement,
for example.
We must also expand opportunities for mid-career graduate level education.
The graduates of these programs should then go right back into the operational force –
not be shunted off to some utilization tour at the Academy, for instance. We must
remove the stigma that exists today when officers take time out of their operational
careers to pursue liberal arts graduate degrees. These principles ought to extend into
the non-commissioned officer corps as well.
But I suspect you think I am describing the impossible. Presently, going to
graduate school risks getting off the beaten path and being passed over for promotion.
There is no time to cram more PME in today’s career timeline. Well, you are right.
What really needs to happen is for the legacy machine age personnel systems to be
disassembled and put back together again in fundamentally different ways to meet the
demands of the information age population they are trying to recruit, retain, train, and
educate. It is tough to see how the Services are going to attract adaptive, innovative,
agile people without adaptive, innovative, agile personnel policies to suit them.
Most importantly, this career timeline model, with all of the gates officers must hit
in a certain sequence in a certain time to remain competitive for promotion, must be
seriously reviewed. It is a tyranny. Generally, promotion is associated with greater
challenges and responsibilities, as well as a deserved pay raise. But since warfare is
becoming more complex at lower levels, greater challenges and responsibilities are
coming to officers as a natural course of their duties. As a result, it takes longer to
develop the required expertise at each level – but we don’t see recognition of that in
today’s compressed career timelines. A flexible pay system, not rigidly linked to rank,
could properly compensate people throughout their service life and reduce the fiscal
pressures soldiers feel to get promoted. This would buy them the time they need to
truly master their profession at each level.
Napoleon said, “Ask me for anything you need, except time.” How do we buy
the time in the service lives of our officers so that they can develop the deep expertise
they will require? The only way to do it is to make the proper investment in the size of
our forces. I have been calling for more active duty forces for years and at no time has
the need been greater. We need more forces just to meet the demands of today -- to
more evenly spread the load of these multiple deployments you are experiencing now.
But just as important, we need these additional forces to buy time in the present
to prepare for the future. Only with a deep bench can we meet the demands of today
while providing our service members the opportunities they need to develop the
expertise required at each level, to broaden their professional military education, to
pursue civilian graduate educational opportunities, and to take the time needed to
pause and reflect upon what they have learned and experienced. This is how
knowledge turns into wisdom.
But all of that is pie in the sky when we stop to consider the reality, which is that
we are struggling to man the Army today. I have great faith in our soldiers, but I have
been worried for quite some time that the demands we are placing on them are
beginning to break the force. Public support for the Iraq War ebbs lower and lower –
that is evident in the polls of course, but more pointedly, it is evident in the recruiting
stations across the nation. This is also reflected in the declining numbers of high
school seniors who are willing to compete for appointments to the service academies.
Iraq represents a looming crisis we did not expect when we began the war two
and half years ago. The Army’s recruiting numbers are below its goal this year, and
next year looks tough as well. Retention is doing fairly well, but both recruiting and
retention are trailing indicators that fail to identify a problem until after it has arrived.
Serious damage may have been done already.
The signs of strain are unmistakable. If we want to think about leading
indicators, the increasing rates at which Army marriages are failing bodes ill, as does
the rise in junior officer attrition. The bottom line is that if some of these trends do not
change soon, the Army may not recover fully for years. That is a national security
threat we can ill afford.
I have spent a lot of time thinking about how to carry this message to the
American people. Since I do not believe the youth of America is unwilling or incapable
of serving our country, I tend to think that our country is not making a clear and
compelling argument about why they should.
The former Speaker of the House, the late Tip O’Neill, used to tell a story about
his first run for public office. He assumed that he didn’t need to campaign in his own
neighborhood. Because he took their votes for granted, he ended up losing that
election by 160 votes.
Just before election day, an old friend told him, “Tom, I am going to vote for you
tomorrow, even though you didn’t ask me to.” The future Speaker was shocked and
surprised by this. “Why, Mrs. O’Brien,” he said, “I’ve lived across the street from you for
18 years. . . I didn’t think I had to ask for your vote.” “Tom,” she replied, “let me tell you
something: People like to be asked.”
This is a lesson for all of us to take to heart -- people like to be asked. So today,
I am asking America’s young people to enter national service. I urge all of our country’s
leaders to make a similar call.
Leaders at all levels, not just the recruiters in our neighborhoods, have a
responsibility to ask our young people to serve our country. We cannot expect
America’s sons and daughters to volunteer for the military just because they live in the
greatest country the world has ever known.
When we ask young men and women to volunteer, we must be able to explain to
these potential recruits and to their families why their service is so necessary.
Essentially, the message must be this: The issue is no longer just about what is good
for the war in Iraq. It is not just about losing a nation with the potential for
representative self-government after so many years of tyranny. Nor is it about allowing
a snake pit of terrorism to flourish in the heart of the Middle East. Those reasons are
powerful geopolitical considerations, but there are other compelling reasons for America
as well.
This is about what is good for the long term health and security of our nation. If
our military is going to make this transition from the machine age to the information age,
we need that deep bench I spoke about. That means significantly increasing the force
and populating it with high quality people at a time when Americans’ tendency to serve
in the military is on the decline. We must turn that around.
The best of America must continue to step up to serve and we need them to
come forward in even greater numbers. If they will not, our military will be unable to
take the time to adequately prepare for the transformation to the information age, and
the finest force in history will atrophy to the point where it will be unready to fight the
next time it is called upon -- whether that is responding to a terrorist attack, deterring a
conflict on the Korean Peninsula or across the Taiwan Strait, or somewhere else we
can’t yet foresee.
The cost of preparing for the challenges of tomorrow pales in comparison to the
price we will pay should we be caught unawares. The future of our country depends
upon the next great generation of citizens who will answer our call to service. Their
contributions will shape the country that they hand down to their children and
grandchildren. I believe that young Americans understand this, and they are willing to
answer the call, but we must never take them for granted and fail to ask.
- 30 -
Congressman Ike Skelton (D-MO) serves as Ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. For further information, please contact Lara Battles or Whitney Frost at (202)225-2876, or check Congressman Skelton's web site at http://www.house.gov/skelton.
News | About Ike
| District Information
| Constituent Services | Links | Kids Links