The Army

General Dennis J. Reimer

United States Army Chief of Staff June 1995–June 1999

General Dennis J. Reimer served as the thirty-third Chief of Staff, United States Army from 1995–1999. The majority of the quotations in this chapter are from his collected works, entitled Soldiers Are Our Credentials: The Collected Works and Selected Papers of the Thirty-third Chief of Staff, United States Army. Quotations were also drawn from other material, which is listed in the bibliography.

Soldiers Are Our Credentials!

The Army
Army Missions
The Army-Nation Bond The Army and Peace AUSA
Force Structure
The Human Dimension Jointness
Leadership Climate Leadership Development Logistics


Mentoring Modernization
Recruiting and Retention The Reserve Components Resources

Strategic Environment/Threats Teamwork
The Total Army
Tradition and Heritage Training
Vision and the Future



The Army

The United States Army is an army of citizen-soldiers; it is the Army of the people of the United States. The strength of the United States Army is more than the number of rifles, tanks, artillery pieces, and helicopters. We are the army of a democracy, and our strength is derived from the very soul of our nation. – p. 14

Since 1775, the fate of the nation has often rested in the capable hands of its soldiers. From Yorktown to Gettysburg to Normandy to the Persian Gulf, to discovering and building a nation and protecting others from aggression, ultimately, it is the Army that decides our success in war and peace. The Army is the force of decision. –p. 30

Our Army has defended the American people for over 224 years—one year longer than the age of the nation. Our martial traditions go back even further to the first muster of the Colonial Militia in 1636. The one million men and women serving in today’s Army— active, U.S. Army National Guard, U.S. Army Reserve, and Department of the Army Civilians—are part of this great legacy of service. As the Army progresses, it will serve us well to keep in mind why the nation has an army, the values that distinguish our soldiers, and the bond between the Army and the Nation—these things will not change. They are the essence of our being, and neither the geostrategic environment nor technology will break the common threads that tie yesterday’s soldiers at Valley Forge to today’s soldiers on the demilitarized zone in Korea, Bosnia, or elsewhere around the globe, to tomorrow’s soldiers in the 21st century. –pp. v, 82

Army Missions

There is a tremendous depth and breadth to our profession. The American soldier has been and will always be more than the warrior holding the spear at the frontline of battle. We deter and respond to aggression, but we also shape the international environment by building regional stability and reducing the possibility of conflict. Our “battlefields” include humanitarian assistance in Rwanda, peacekeeping in the Sinai and Bosnia, forward presence on the Korean peninsula, and nation-building

in Haiti. To meet these challenges, America will need soldiers who possess the moral character, firm will, and professional ability to separate warring parties, reassure fearful civilians, restore public order, keep criminals from taking advantage of a vacuum in civil order, protect and deliver humanitarian assistance, and most important, fight and win our nation’s wars. These things will always require boots on the ground. –pp. 251, 245, 34, 160, 78

Since DESERT STORM, the overwhelming majority of missions to which America has committed its military resources has been done by the Army. These missions range in size from a handful of soldiers to large troop deployments all over the world. With our unique ability to deter or compel any adversary, reassure allies and friends, and support domestic authorities, the Army is the world’s premiere force.

Deter. The first capability that the United States Army has and must have, is the ability to deter war. For over fifty years U.S. troops have deterred aggression in Europe and Korea, creating an environment of stability that has benefited the entire world. T o deter war, we must remain strong. Deterrence is far cheaper than fighting a war.

Compel. If deterrence fails, we still have the responsibility that we’ve always had, to fight and win. To compel our adversaries, the Army is capable of conducting sustained, high-tempo land warfare under all conditions—day and night.

Reassure. We have found that this global village has moved nations closer together, such that our ability to reassure allies and coalition partners is critically important. We do this with programs like “Partnership for Peace” and with other programs as in South America. Reassurance is a sound investment.

Support. The fourth capability that we provide is military support for civilian authorities in a wide range of domestic activities and requirements. The Army has played a vital role in the history of the country and has changed to meet the nation’s changing needs. Domestic crises and natural disasters have always underscored the demand for an Army that can support the needs of the nation within its own borders. We conduct disaster relief operations as a matter of course. During a trip to Poland I had the opportunity to visit with some of the over 50,000 Polish soldiers providing flood relief in their country. It seems domestic support has become a fact of life for most modern militaries, and I think only good can come of efforts where the military is used to promote positive developments. –pp. 32, 76, 103, 31, 104, 147; Cong. Test., March 13, 1997

General Dennis J. Reimer: 1995–1999


Shape, Respond, Prepare. The United States has moved beyond containment with a new strategic approach that emphasizes global leadership and continuous, meaningful engagement in world affairs. This profound change is reflected in our National Military Strategy which requires us to shaperespond, and prepare.

Shape. We have the opportunity to shape the world we want to live in, to structure an international environment that focuses on economic prosperity and cooperation rather than political confrontation and conflict. Shaping requires us to be involved, face-to- face with our allies and friends, sharing the hardships and risks while promoting the development of stable regimes and regional stability. Peacetime engagement’s purpose is to shape the international environment through a broad range of noncombat activities that demonstrate commitment, improve collective military capabilities, promote democratic ideals, bolster prosperity, relieve suffering, and enhance regional stability. Toward these ends, thousands of U.S. Army soldiers are engaged daily in activities that promote peace and stability. Military-to- military contacts, particularly in the emerging democracies of former Soviet nations, provide opportunities for Army soldiers to teach their counterparts everything from squad tactics to the military’s role in a democracy. These contacts take place not only abroad, but at home as well. Currently, the Army is training soldiers from 134 countries at our installations throughout the United States. Last year, American soldiers participated in 16 NATO “Partnership for Peace” exercises designed to expand and improve interoperability among NATO and other European nations. Similarly, 61 soldiers stand watch on the border between Ecuador and Peru to assist in the peaceful settlement of the border dispute between those two important US trading partners.

The ultimate objective of our shaping efforts is the enhancement of mutual understanding, trust, and confidence, all of which will lessen, or perhaps even obviate, the requirement for nations and groups to resort to the use of force to resolve their differences. Soldiers on the ground help provide regional stability. During the President’s State of the Union Address, he emphasized the global economy and the world’s interdependence and the importance of stability throughout the world. The United States Army is a primary contributor to that stability.

Respond. To be ready to respond, we focus on ensuring near-term readiness so that our forces are ready to react to requirements at home and abroad— the full spectrum of military missions from homeland

defense and support to domestic authorities to major regional conflicts overseas. We’re talking about global power projection—being able to move the capabilities we possess anywhere in the world, whether that be fighting forest fires, providing military support to civilian authorities, or deploying a brigade to Kuwait in order to deter Saddam Hussein. We must be able to move forces very quickly and that requires a total joint effort in terms of Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and in many cases the Coast Guard. Responding to the needs of Americans at home and abroad has always been a tenet of our military strategy and the Army’s time-honored task. Every American who has watched an Army National Guard truck deliver a load of sand bags to help shore-up a levee holding back a raging flood, or an Army convoy plow through an ice storm to deliver lifesaving supplies, understands what we mean by the respond pillar of the National Military Strategy.

Prepare. Finally, the strategy requires us, while maintaining current readiness, to prepare now for the security tasks and challenges we will face in the future. Prepare means continually modernizing our forces— updating doctrine and leader development programs— so they are prepared to deal with the security challenges of the future, ensuring that America has, and retains, a strong and capable force. We must prepare the force for the challenges we see deep in the 21st century and to make sure that our soldiers will have at that point in time the best equipment and the best weapon systems that the country can provide.

Today’s National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement has led to a dramatic increase in the use of the Army as an instrument of national policy. We are trying to make the world a safer place for our children and our grandchildren. If we can pull that off, and I think we can, that will be a tremendous contribution we will leave behind to society—not only to American society, but to the world as well. –pp. 125, 118, 119, 114–115, 214, 146, 142, 193; Cong. Test., March 13, 1997, May 21, 1997, Feb. 10, 1998, Jan. 20, 1999, and Feb. 24, 1999

There is more to winning wars and securing a peaceful stable world than winning battles. We would rather deal with problems before they become acute, and diminish threats before they become dangers. There are other tasks, equally important for ensuring the security of the United States, including addressing the conditions that might lead to war, helping nations recover from hardships and conflict, and preempting future wars. “Strategic Preemption” is the ability to halt or prevent a conflict or crisis before it becomes

General Dennis J. Reimer: 1995–1999


debilitating or protracted—before it spreads out of control. That means that we must be able to respond quickly; we must be able to get our forces there rapidly. A vivid demonstration of the Army’s enhanced capability to project credible power quickly over extended distances occurred in December 1994 when Saddam Hussein made threatening gestures toward Kuwait again. Once President Bill Clinton approved the deployment of an armored brigade from Fort Hood, Texas, to Kuwait, the 5,000-soldier brigade from the 1st Cavalry Division was positioned in Kuwait, with its complete combat vehicle set— drawn from pre-positioned stocks, ready to conduct combat operations—in less than 120 hours. –pp. 214, 125, 119; Cong. Test., Feb. 24, 1999

The Army-Nation Bond

If I have learned anything in these last four years, it is that building a great Army takes a national effort. It needs the support and sacrifice of great Army families. It demands strong national leaders in the presidential administration and the Congress who understand the challenge of keeping an Army trained and ready. It requires the understanding and commitment of America’s employers who make it possible for our citizen-soldiers, the Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve, to also serve. It relies on our dedicated civilian workforce and our partners in industry who work with us to provide our soldiers the best possible equipment. It draws on our veterans and retirees, who inspire us with their example and continue to serve the Army and their fellow veterans in so many ways. And, of course, the Army’s success is the product of being part of a joint team—a team of Navy, Air Force, Marine, and Army professionals.

Finally, without the support of the American people there could be no Army. They entrust us with their most precious assets—their sons and daughters—and it is our job to ensure they are properly cared for. This means providing them the most realistic training possible and the best caring and concerned leadership we can possibly provide. It is also a shared responsibility with Congress. We must provide them adequate pay, proper medical care, acceptable housing, and stable benefits to include retirement. These are the four areas of quality of life that we think most important. The greatest danger is complacency. We have done our job so well and been so successful that some may be lulled into the belief that victories can be easily or cheaply won—they can’t. Winning requires a quality force of great men and women, well

led, superbly trained, and armed with the most modern weapons and equipment. Building this kind of force requires the best from all the members of Team America. –pp. v, 200, vi

In a democracy an army ultimately depends on the people to provide the resources necessary for national defense. To be willing to provide this support, the people must understand the need for an army and respect and trust it as an institution. Reflecting on the decline of the armed forces after World War I, General George C. Marshall captured the essence of the national debate that habitually follows America’s strategic victories. Recognizing the military must always make a new case for defense before the American public he wrote, “In a democracy where the government is truly an agent of the popular will, military policy is dependent on public opinion, and our organization for war will be good or bad as the public is well informed or poorly informed regarding the factors that bear on the subject.” Almost six decades later, General Marshall’s insight is still relevant. We owe it to the American people, our soldiers and their families to ensure the Army’s story—their story—is told to the nation. The bottom line is the Army has a great story to tell—and our soldiers are our best spokespersons. –pp. 134, 148, 15, 244

The Army and Peace

To the extent we prevent wars we win wars. Every day the Army is deployed around the world in almost a hundred countries—training, helping, keeping the peace, making a difference, and our efforts to prepare for the future are unmatched by any military force on the planet. The Army’s contributions to the prevention of conflict and world stability have been significant. Our participation in operations to reassure warring parties is the only path to peace in many parts of the world. The important army-to-army relationships we have established with friends and allies are also evident in what we do. Partnership for Peace exercises and military-to-military contacts are just some examples of the Army’s involvement in conflict prevention and promoting world order. Every NCO and officer in Europe in 1996 spent 180 days away from their home stations primarily with training in the Partnership for Peace Program. This is above and beyond what Bosnia adds to their OPTEMPO. Partnership for Peace is preventing wars, helping the people in Eastern Europe become democratic

General Dennis J. Reimer: 1995–1999


societies, shaping the security environment, and enabling us to trade with those countries. –pp. 67, 240, 233, 77, 104; Cong. Test., March 13, 1996

We seek to engage other nations—to promote our common interests—to our mutual advantage. I sincerely believe that before countries and armies can engage each other, they must understand each other. Americans see engagement as a process of sharing ideas—nurturing common interests—and creating relationships where both peoples benefit from the exchange. This process begins with knowing one another. For strong bonds between nations take hold only when they are anchored in understanding. –p. 145

America’s Army sets the example for other countries seeking the proper role of an army in a democracy. In nearly every nation, the dominant armed service is the army. Many armies, however, need to learn how an army serves its nation, without running the nation. By training with U.S. Army units and participating in our institutional training programs, soldiers of emerging democracies receive important lessons in democratic values. Teaching these important lessons and training with others takes significant time and effort, but they are important contributions to regional stability.

We must recognize that we are indispensable for peace in this world. Every Allied officer and foreign military official I meet seeks closer ties and cooperation with the United States Army. We do this primarily through training exercises, student exchange programs, and with our Military Attachés.

The military plays a key role in peace and stability throughout the free world. Soldiers on the ground—the most visible sign of deterrence and reassurance— directly contribute to regional stability and an environment of stability where nations can develop effective government institutions and viable economies. But regional stability does not happen overnight; it is a dangerous and complicated business. It takes time, commitment, and the continuous presence of U.S. forces. Sustained presence, with its resulting regional stability, is a mission that the Army is uniquely structured to carry out. –pp. 31, 141, 30; Cong. Test., March 13, 1997

We used to teach military policeman that their secondary mission is to fight as infantry; now we teach the infantry how to be military policemen. Bosnia also reflects the emphasis we are placing on Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations. Civil Affairs units come primarily from the U.S. Army Reserve. Their

mission is just as critical to the success of the Bosnia operation as that of any maneuver unit we have ever put into combat. –p. 194

Our soldiers are proud of the fact that they have saved thousands of lives and mitigated human suffering through their efforts. In Bosnia there are children that are a year older. There are families that have celebrated another year of holidays and anniversaries together. What a great gift. What a great feeling of satisfaction for having done that. –pp. 240, 104; Cong. Test., Feb. 10, 1998


Every year in the life of the United States Army is precious—year by year we gather here at the AUSA Convention to review one more chapter in our glorious history. –p. 238


Revolutions in military affairs do not occur as quickly as they appear in turning the pages of a history book. A true revolution in military affairs is more than simply “dressing-up” the current force with high-tech weaponry. It requires advancing all the critical aspects of the force. The heart of the Force XXI change process has always been understanding how changing aspects of the force will affect one another and which changes are the most critical. It does us no good to have new weapons without quality soldiers trained to use them, the doctrine to employ them, or the organizations to support them. We have to develop all our capabilities in a synchronized manner—and that takes time and resources. To get change right we focus on the Army’s Six Imperatives:

-Realistic training—ensuring our soldiers and leaders are prepared to execute as part of a joint team, ready to perform any of the diverse, demanding warfighting or security tasks they may be assigned.

-The right doctrine—providing the doctrinal guidance on how to employ the capabilities of our forces to their best effect.

-The proper force mix—having the capability to rapidly deploy exactly the right kinds of forces needed for the task at hand.

-Modern equipment—fielding the equipment required to perform the mission and protect the lives of our soldiers.

-Dynamic leadership—providing professional military leadership that knows how to get the job done right and take care of soldiers.

General Dennis J. Reimer: 1995–1999


-Quality soldiers—having soldiers grounded in the Army’s values and traditions, armed with the right physical and mental skills.

Those imperatives will never change, but inside each of those imperatives we must change in order to adjust to the changing environment. Properly balancing our Six Imperatives that are our links to the past and the future is the key to success. Without the appropriate balance of these imperatives, U.S. soldiers will pay a heavy price at the opening bell of the next war. General William DePuy described that price as a race between the seasoning process and the casualty process. It’s a race we can ill afford to lose. It’s a race we don’t need to be in. No doubt there will be great challenges, but there will also be wonderful opportunities. –pp. 256, 257, 264, 161, 116, 110, 275, Feb. 24, 1999


Discipline is not the fear of punishment for doing something wrong, but a faith in the value of doing something right. As General John M. Schofield said over a century ago:

“The discipline which makes the soldiers of a free country reliable in battle is not to be gained by harsh and tyrannical treatment. On the contrary, such treatment is far more likely to destroy than to make an Army. It is possible to impart instruction and to give commands in such a manner and such a tone of voice to inspire in the soldier no feeling but an intense desire to obey, while the opposite manner and tone of voice cannot fail to excite strong resentment and a desire to disobey. The one mode or the other of dealing with subordinates springs from a corresponding spirit in the breast of the commander. He who feels the respect which is due to others cannot fail to inspire in them regard for himself, while he who feels, and hence manifests, disrespect toward others, especially his inferiors, cannot fail to inspire hatred against himself.”

Schofield framed these words in 1879, but they are as true today as they were then. –pp. 166, 162, 16–17, 246


Doctrine is our collective wisdom about the conduct of war. It is the core process that gives us a better common understanding of both new missions and

capabilities, and assures a unity of effort. Doctrine is a playbook; it’s how we do our tactics, techniques, and procedures. And so that has to be modified as you go along. –pp. 13–14, 236

With the end of the Cold War, a prominent theory arose that there would no longer be a need for large land forces, that power projection and national military strategy could primarily be carried out through precision strikes using technologically advanced smart weapons. Reality proved that theory to be invalid. History has shown that we cannot counter the human dimension of warfare with purely technological solutions. We have been down this road before, sometimes with disastrous results. The price for this wishful thinking has too often been paid by ill- prepared, untrained forces fighting desperately with their valor and their blood to make up for our lack of strategic forethought.

Like those before us, we must harmonize the relationship between dominant maneuver and precision engagement to meet our national security needs and avoid shortsighted and unworkable solutions to solving operational requirements. Our challenge is to avoid dependence on rigid, fleeting, one-dimensional strategies that are overly reliant on either precision engagement or dominant maneuver. Such strategies create imbalance among the operational concepts, reduce national strategic choices, and threaten the possibility of a return to attrition warfare—and with its concomitant price in human suffering. We must keep our investment and application of these operational concepts in harmony. –pp. 83, 80, 81. Cong. Test., March 13, 1997


Soldiers and their families are truly our most precious resource. The emphasis we put on taking care of soldiers pays great dividends—intangible but vital. All you have to do is look in those soldiers’ eyes in Bosnia to know how much they appreciate the emphasis we are putting on taking care of them and their families. – pp. 25, 22

I married a saint. My wife, Mary Jo, has been there every step of the way, through good times and bad. I certainly would not be here without her. She is the perfect Army wife because she cares deeply for Army families, and more importantly, she does something about it. –p. 278

General Dennis J. Reimer: 1995–1999


Force Structure

Considering a force for the future starts with the National Military Strategy. Strategy comes first. Strategy drives requirements—requirements then determine force structure and everything that follows. The triumphs and failures of American military history can be traced through how well we have kept the demands of strategy and the requirements for military force in balance. When the link between strategy and our rationale for retaining and modernizing forces remained clear and compelling, the military proved an effective instrument of national policy. When strategy and military capability drifted apart we put both our national interests and the men and women of the armed forces at risk. Strategy is important because it is the underpinning for everything we do. –pp. 214, viii, 193; Cong. Test., March 24, 1999

The key to providing the requisite capabilities to the nation is balanced, general purpose forces. Balanced forces provide the broadest range of options to policy makers and offer the most credible deterrent to the wide spectrum of potential threats. There is no substitute for a complementary mix of agile, flexible joint forces that can confront a foe with a complex array of formidable capabilities. Further, these joint forces must be of sufficient size and strength to reassure our allies and execute necessary operations without providing a window of vulnerability for others to exploit. –p. 207; Cong. Test., March 13, 1996, and March 13, 1997

There are no silver bullets. There is no single technology or operational capability that will meet all our future requirements. If we concentrate our resources on any one particular type of conflict, we may deter that conflict while possibly encouraging another. The answer to future challenges will not be found in simple solutions, but in determining how we can make the best use of all the aspects of national power and build effective multi-national coalitions, combining them in creative and innovative ways, and adapting them to the specific needs of each security challenge. –p. 207; Cong. Test., March 13, 1996

To provide leadership and to promote democratic principles, human rights, and free-market economies in the world, the United States will need an Army that is more strategically responsive. Advances in precision weaponry and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction will make the future battlefield a much more lethal place. Tomorrow’s tactical engagement areas will likely extend as far as today’s operational

and strategic distances. To survive and accomplish its objectives in such an environment, the Army must become more mentally and physically agile. It must also fight as part of a joint team, contributing its unique capabilities toward the realization of the operational concepts laid out in Joint Vision 2010. While advances in precision weapons will make the battlefield more lethal, events have shown that if we want to protect a people’s cultural and ethnic existence, we have to do it the old—fashioned way— by putting troops on the ground. –pp. 270–271

In preparing to meet the demands of 2020 and beyond, planners must recognize that the future geostrategic environment will be increasingly urbanized, requiring forces that can discriminate between combatants and noncombatants and which can apply appropriate combinations of lethal and nonlethal force. Our forces in the future will have to deal effectively with asymmetric challenges, including weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, information warfare, special operations or clandestine forces, attempts to deny regional access to our allies and U.S. forces, urban warfare, and an adversary’s use of civilians and refugees as shields against U.S. stand-off precision-guided munitions.

We know what we want the Army’s characteristics to be in 2020. The Army—and our sister services— should be:

-Joint by design, not by accommodation.

-Capable of fully exploiting information-age technologies.

-Led by streamlined headquarters elements. -Mobile—strategically, operationally, and tactically. -Versatile, with units that can perform multiple,

disparate functions.
-Flexible, with units that can deftly transition

between the use of lethal and nonlethal force, as the situation dictates.

-Logistically unencumbered—“just-in-time,” rather than “just-in-case.”

-Capable of implementing the operational concepts of Joint Vision 2010: dominant maneuver, precision engagement, full-dimension protection, and focused logistics.

-A force that trains the way it fights. –pp. 118, 120; Cong. Test., May 21, 1997


History is a great teacher. It teaches us who we are by reminding us of who we were. I have been to

General Dennis J. Reimer: 1995–1999


Gettysburg probably four or five times during my career, and each time I’ve learned something new about what took place on that hallowed ground. It is very important to be reminded occasionally of what war is all about. What our responsibilities as leaders are all about. I would challenge you to continue to study military history and what took place in the past. –p. 239; USMA, May 28, 1998

The Human Dimension

While the complexities of this institution are great, at the core it is very simple. It is all about people. As General Creighton Abrams, the Chief of Staff of the Army in the early 1970s, said, “The Army is not made of people, the Army is people. By people I do not mean personnel…I mean living, breathing, serving human beings. They have needs and interests and desires. They have spirit and will, strengths and abilities. They have weaknesses and faults; and they have means. They are the heart of our preparedness…and this preparedness—as a nation and as an Army—depends upon the spirit of our soldiers. It is the spirit that gives the Army…life.” Without it we cannot succeed.” That is as true today as it was when he said it. It will continue to be true in the 21st century. –pp. 279, 158, 6

The U.S. Army of today and of tomorrow, with its emphasis on developing advanced technology, must give equal, if not greater, emphasis to developing support for the human dimensions of change. Even with the best technology America can afford to provide, at the point of the spear it will still be a very recognizable fight—system against system, soldier against soldier. That is why our emphasis in Army XXI remains on mental agility and the other aspects of change associated with the human dimension. –pp. 165, 161

Every decision we make is a people issue. The greatest asset of the United States Army always has been, is today, and always will be its people. That is the way it has been for 221 years, and it will remain that way in the 21st century. –pp. 17, 78


The nature of modern warfare is joint warfare with land forces at the core of our joint warfighting capability. We can achieve victory only with the complete integration of air, sea, and land power. The

strength of our Army, therefore, is magnified by the synergy achieved through the cooperation and cohesion of a joint effort. Being an integral part of the joint team simply means we fight together. There’s an awful lot of controversy, controversy in terms of jointness while we compete for resources. Yes, we’re going to compete for resources, but we will be joint at the very end. What we must do is make the decisions that are best for the nation. That’s what we’re all pledged to do. But it is really in our own interest, our best interest, to assure that we become even more joint, particularly as we’re becoming smaller. –pp. 33, 43


The unique capability to exercise direct, continuing, and comprehensive control over land, its resources, and people is the essence of the Army’s contribution to the joint force in winning the nation’s wars. The Army is the only Service that has the capability to provide this support across the full spectrum of requirements.

Primary among these contributions is the role land forces play in support of preventive defense. Through peacetime engagement, land forces are active and dominant players in preventive defense activities ranging from nation-building to military-to-military contacts. Through their presence, they provide a unique capability to impart American/democratic values as they interact with nations’ armies and peoples to favorably shape the world environment and help keep potential dangers to our security from becoming full-blown threats.

They are the force that protects and controls populations, restores order, and facilitates the transition from hostilities to peace. It is through this dimension of influence that the land force component, the Army, serves to strengthen the nation’s position in security and foreign policy, in negotiating treaties, in dealing with foreign governments, and in establishing alliances.

The land component is also the force of choice to respond to natural and man-made disasters, assist communities during civil disturbances, and perform civic action/nation-building projects as required. In a dynamic and unpredictable geostrategic environment, the U.S. Army provides a full range of choices to the nation and a hedge against uncertainty—a unique asset, a national asset.

The threat of employing fully trained, highly motivated military forces equipped with modern,

General Dennis J. Reimer: 1995–1999


powerful warfighting systems serves as a credible deterrent to adversaries who might otherwise perceive the risk of conflict worth the spoils of war. The forward stationing of land forces on foreign soil identifies regions of U.S. vital interests and signals the highest degree of commitment that these interests will be protected. The deployment of military forces in times of crisis commits the prestige, honor, and resolve of the nation. The deployment of land forces is the gravest response that can be made, short of war, to demonstrate the national will to prevent conflict. –pp. 86, 90, 33, 82

If the post–Cold War era has taught us anything, it is that landpower will have a fundamentally increased relevance in the 21st century. The demand for adequate landpower to support this great nation is established by enduring strategic realities. The United States is and will remain a global power with global responsibilities. The world is no longer as vast as it once was. We live in a global economic village where regional and global interdependencies are growing. The well-being of the economy of the United States is dependent upon regional stability elsewhere. Conflict and instability is now land-centered—no one else possesses the wherewithal to challenge U.S. dominance on the sea or in the sky. Land-centered conflict is people-focused and the ability to decisively control the land, populations, or valuable resources is essential to the resolution of conflict. Conflict prevention and conflict resolution—in this world, both today and tomorrow—requires boots on the ground.

During the 40 years from 1950 to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Army conducted 10 notable deployments. Since 1990, in the short span of six years, we have deployed 25 times—an increase in missions by a factor of 16. This new paradigm reflects the significance of land forces in supporting the National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement. Most future operations will occur on the lower and middle portions of the continuum of military operations ranging from disaster relief to global war, where land forces provide unique and essential capabilities, the most options, and the most useful tools. These types of operations require the commitment of U.S. land forces to establish leadership and to enable our allies and coalition partners. They call for soldiers on the ground, directly interfacing with the civilians and/or military involved in the crisis. The frequency of demands for land forces will increase as the Army is called upon to support peacetime engagement activities, such as multilateral military exercises, training, military-to-military

exchanges, as well as crises on the lower end of the continuum. –pp. 90, 83, 84


My experience is that three things are essential for success:

First, do what’s right every day, legally and morally. You’ll get a lot of advice on what’s legally correct, but it is not enough just to do what is legally right, you must do what is morally right also. The moral litmus test can only come from one person, you, you have to look yourself in the mirror every day and say, “Am I doing what’s right?” That is all I ask of anyone: Do what is right. Leaders must look to their soldiers and focus on the good. No soldier wakes up in the morning and says, “Okay, how am I going to screw this up today?” Soldiers want to do good and commanders should give them that opportunity. An outstanding soldier, Command Sergeant Major Richard Cayton, the former US Forces Command (FORSCOM) sergeant major, summed up a leader’s responsibility this way: “Your soldiers will walk a path and they will come to a crossroad; if you are standing at the crossroad, where you belong, you can guide your soldiers to the right path and make them successful.” The Army’s leaders must ensure that they are always “standing at the crossroads.” If we empower people to do what is legally and morally right, there is no limit to the good we can accomplish

The second point of my leadership philosophy is to create an environment where people can be all they can be. Many soldiers enlisted under this recruiting slogan, and we have a responsibility to assist them in developing mentally, physically, spiritually, and socially to their full potential. It is essential that leaders develop the initiative of subordinates. Initiative will be stifled and creativity destroyed unless soldiers feel they have been given a fair chance to mature and grow. Every soldier must feel he is being treated fairly and that you care and are making an honest attempt to ensure he or she reaches full potential. We have to give them the opportunity to be all they can be. That is what leadership does. At the same time, we also need to challenge ourselves to be all we can be.

The third point of my leadership philosophy is to treat others as you would have them treat you—a basic respect for the dignity of each individual; treating all with dignity and respect. This is a simple restatement of the Golden Rule, but it is a critical issue. The Army is a complex organization and we need people of

General Dennis J. Reimer: 1995–1999


diverse skills, and we must ensure that all have a path to success.

If we practice three basic rules, we will create a leadership environment in which all soldiers can grow and thrive, and build the teamwork so essential to everything we do. If we do these three things, there are no problems too complex, no challenges too great for us to handle. –pp. 5, 275, 17, 163, 18, 129, 157; USMA, May 28, 1998

When you get down to the fundamental level, leadership is fairly simple and doesn’t change based upon rank. Basically it requires us to know the details of our profession, to truly care and focus on our soldiers, and to lead by example. That focus must be down, not up. For leaders to contribute they must focus primarily on what their troops are doing and not on their boss’ schedule. If our focus is down and we truly care about taking care of soldiers then the contributions naturally flow and success is ensured. As I look back on 35 years of service, I’m most proud of the fact that I’ve had an opportunity to help some people and I’ve seen many of those who work for me develop to be all they can be. I know that’s what I’ll remember most when it’s all said and done. –pp. 206, 129

Command authority is a sacred trust bestowed upon our leaders. When that authority is abused by one or two individuals it diminishes the whole institution. On taking the oath, soldiers voluntarily forego certain individual liberties, to the point that they must be willing to sacrifice their lives for the good of the nation. It is this voluntary surrender of individual liberties for the common good that makes any abuse of authority by leaders appointed over soldiers so egregious and devastating to discipline. We must eliminate any and all abuse of authority. –pp. 69, 163

Soldiers must have absolute trust and confidence in their leaders. Soldiers must trust that their leaders are selfless, objective, knowledgeable, and dedicated to doing what is best for them, their unit, and the Army. They must be confident that their leaders’ decisions always support these same core values. In short, they must have confidence in the chain of command, and that confidence must be earned. Trust and confidence are intangibles, but I guarantee you that without them no organization, especially a military one, will be able to function and work as it should. Military leaders potentially have to make life and death decisions that affect their soldiers through the orders they issue. At the critical time when orders need to be followed

without question, doubt and lack of confidence in the chain of command will cause casualties. Confidence and trust engender discipline, which saves lives. The circumstances that foster trust and confidence must prevail. Leader-subordinate relationships defined by these tenets are absolute and essential to mission accomplishment. –Cong. Test., Feb. 4, 1997

With our diversity in terms of race and gender, one of the things we bring to Bosnia is a role model on how things could and should be. We have been able to leverage that diversity into the finest military organization of the day. Hopefully that lesson will not be lost on the Bosnians. They ultimately will have to make their diversity work for them. However, diversity in itself is not the total answer. What unlocks the great strength in diversity is values-based leadership. Values-based leadership means setting the example and then creating a command climate where soldiers can put values into practice. It is leadership best described by the simple principle “be, know, do.” Leaders must not only exemplify Army values in their words and deeds, they must create the opportunity for every soldier in their command to live them as well. Without values-based leadership and consideration of others, no organization or entity is able to achieve its full potential. You can’t just preach it, you must demonstrate it. That clearly is one of our most important tasks and that’s why the actions of soldiers and leaders of all ranks are so important. Through their example they are truly shaping the environment of the future. –pp. 211, 246

The role of leadership is to turn challenges into opportunities. Problems can be solved by concerned, caring, and committed leaders. Leaders are the key, and leading is our strong suit. I’m basically an optimist and tend to focus on the fact that the U.S. Army has always faced challenges, and one of the things that’s made us great is our ability to solve them. In solving problems, we will make ourselves a stronger Army— we have 222 years of leadership experience to guide us. Make the best out of all the experience you gain— make it work for you. All of us have an opportunity to make history. –pp. 275, 156, 26, 157, 20; USMA, May 28, 1998

Leadership Climate

The environment that Total Army leaders create needs to be ethical as well as predictable. Ensuring an ethical

General Dennis J. Reimer: 1995–1999


command climate requires commitment to Army values and leadership, as well as an unswerving commitment to doing what is morally and legally right.

–p. 249

The zero-defects mentality—where a commander feels his command must be error free—is not new. But we must possess the moral courage to deny this damaging philosophy that says it is worse to report a mistake than it is to make one. This lack of moral courage in peacetime can have disastrous results in battle. General Matthew B. Ridgway described this as a challenge of moral courage, saying, “It has long seemed to me that the hard decisions are not the ones you make in the heat of battle. Far harder to make are those involved in speaking your mind about some harebrained scheme which proposes to commit troops to action under conditions where failure seems almost certain, and the only results will be the needless sacrifice of priceless lives.” General George C. Marshall, echoing Ridgway’s sentiment, described the need for leaders with the moral courage to tell their superiors when they are wrong. “It is hard to get men to do this, for this is when you lay your career, perhaps your commission, on the line.”

The zero-defects mindset can make the Army, as an institution, very risk adverse, and it can also create an environment where ethics are easily compromised. We must take the time to train subordinates, allow them to make mistakes, and retrain them to standard. Many of us in senior leadership positions today wouldn’t be here if our leaders and mentors hadn’t done this for us. Micromanagement, careerism, integrity violations, and the zero-defects mindset can all be dispelled by positive leadership. We have defeated these attitudes in the past. We must do so again. –pp. 18, 29

Leadership Development

The investment we have made in leadership as an institution is paying huge dividends. Built upon the solid foundation of values and framed by the three pillars of institutional training, operational assignments, and self-development, that model works well whether you’re recruiting soldiers, training them in basic training, or leading them in operations like DESERT THUNDER. Leader development is a twenty-year investment. It takes us 20 years to grow a division commander. So if you want somebody as a leader who can be a division commander in 2020, and you want them with different skill sets, you’ve got to

start right about now in order to develop them because that’s how long it’s going to take. To lead the United States Army in the 21st century, we will have to develop leaders with values—men and women who are dedicated, selfless, committed, flexible, and self- confident, not afraid to take risks—well thought out and sound—and not afraid to act. They must value people and nurture them as their most important investment. –pp. 205, 13, 236, 57


Logistics is the lifeblood of armies—that is an indisputable constant in military history. There will never be a revolution in military affairs until there is a revolution in military logistics. This means putting our faith in concepts like velocity management and total asset visibility, giving up the comfort of stockpiling supplies on an iron mountain. We have to depend on systems that will deliver the right support, at the right place, at the right time. We have to build the systems that will give us the confidence and responsiveness we need. Revolutionizing logistical affairs and business practices is not only central to preparing for future military operations, it is also the fulcrum of our effort to balance readiness and modernization. We mitigate our risks only if we aggressively follow through on our transformation of the Army’s logistical and business practices.

Focused logistics will be the fusion of information, logistics, and transportation technologies to provide rapid crisis response, to track and shift assets even while enroute, and to deliver tailored logistics packages and sustainment directly at the strategic, operational, and tactical level of operations. We’ve demonstrated that in Bosnia, where the rules of engagement allow us to enforce peace and at the same time we’re prepared to go to war in a heartbeat if required. We must be able to transition quickly from lethal to nonlethal means and to be able to deploy that capability on the battlefield in a way that is applicable to each. Logistically, we must be unencumbered. The brute-force logistics of the past, where we stockpiled massive amounts of supplies, will be inadequate for the military operations of the future—we can no longer afford the large amount of equipment that we traditionally moved from one place to the other during the Cold War. We must be able to move quickly around the world and provide our troops with the supplies and repair parts they need in a timely manner.

–pp. 197, 231, 88, 126, 146

General Dennis J. Reimer: 1995–1999



Through mentoring we gain confidence in our ability to power down and give subordinates the ability to learn and develop. Mentoring is what differentiates power down from power off. Through mentoring we can program for success without micromanaging.

Everyone wants feedback. We need to tell soldiers when they make mistakes and then coach them to succeed. Part of mentoring is listening to soldiers. You can always learn from them. –pp. 206, 18, 19

America’s Army is unique in the world. Our advantage is the creativity, initiative, and ingenuity of our people. To foster this advantage, we must mentor the next generation of leaders. I’m not talking about some paper program but a real-life leader development program. This is not about picking out someone you like and making them a member of your fan club. This is about one-on-one, face-to-face counseling and preparing junior leaders for increased responsibility. This is what the operational assignment pillar of our leader development program is all about. It cannot be done without devoting adequate quality time to this particular task. This is a window of opportunity that we must leverage to build for the future. General Wilbur Creech, a great Air Force innovator and leader, said it best: “The first duty of any leader is to create more leaders.” The greatest legacy we have is how well we’ve trained our subordinates. When it’s all said and done and time to leave, that’s our report card. – pp. 29, 205, 206, 18


We are moving from an industrial age to an information age, moving from the Army of today to an Army based upon “Knowledge, Speed, and Power.” Knowledge will come from being able to leverage the tremendous capabilities associated with the information-age technology. Speed has two aspects, to be able to move forces, soldiers, anywhere in the world as quickly as possible. The second aspect is to be able to have the mental agility to think quick and to turn inside an enemy’s decision cycle and be able to checkmate him. In other words, we will remove his options so that he will have only two choices: to fight against overwhelming odds or to concede the conflict on our terms. Finally, it’s about power—to be able to have the right force, for the right situation, to be able to mix and match forces so that we can meet the missions we’re given. Knowledge, Speed, and Power

will also help us conduct stability and support operations more effectively by enabling us to put “boots on the ground” in the right locations, quickly, and with the right capabilities to control people and places. Knowledge of the capabilities and locations of friendly and hostile forces, the ability to move quickly anywhere on the globe with the right kinds of forces to do the job, will greatly facilitate peacekeeping, arms control verification, disaster relief, noncombatant evacuation, and counterterrorist missions. –pp. 275, 272

The greatest potential threat to Army readiness is the medium—and long-term impact of an increased operational pace and insufficient modernization funding. By failing to modernize and update our equipment, we put tomorrow’s soldiers at risk. In the event of conflict, a lack of modern equipment will cost the lives of brave soldiers. Soldiers with a technological advantage are not just more capable, they are more survivable. Providing soldiers the modern equipment they need helps to give them the edge. We cannot defer this until conflict seems inevitable. It is the irony of deterrence that we will be challenged when least ready. –Cong. Test., March 13, 1996


The Army’s NCO Corps is the finest in the world—it sets our Army apart and above every other. General Andrei Nikolayev, the Deputy Chief of the Russian General Staff, was on a two-week tour of military bases in the United States. After visiting the first base and seeing our NCOs in action he told one of his aides, “I know that these men and women wearing sergeants’ uniforms are really officers in disguise.” But as he went from base to base, and talked with the NCOs, he came to realize that they really were not officers. He was stunned and told Secretary of Defense William Perry that, “No military in the world has the quality of NCO…found in the United States.” He went on to say, “That’s what gives America its competitive military advantage.” That’s why we have the best military in the world. –pp. 99, 35, 15–16

The high quality of our NCO Corps was manifested in December 1995 when NATO, with almost 20,000 American soldiers, deployed into war-torn Bosnia- Herzegovina as part of the Implementation Force (IFOR) to enforce the provisions of the Dayton Peace Accord, introduce stability into the region, and set the conditions for peace to take hold. The operation

General Dennis J. Reimer: 1995–1999


commenced when our soldiers bridged the Sava River between Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina under the worst conditions imaginable. The river was at a 100- year high—it was cold, icy, wet, and muddy—and our soldiers put that bridge in without a single injury. Our NCO Corps made that happen. The world media was impressed by the technical competence, drive, determination, and leadership of our NCOs. When one reporter asked how the soldiers endured the cold and went sleepless to complete the bridge, one young leader, SSG Robert Butcher of the 535th Combat Support Equipment Company, said that the soldiers “weren’t going to let the river win.” –pp. 35, 159, 104; Cong. Test., March 13, 1997

Army veterans across the country remember their sergeants. If they were in combat they remember the squad leader who saved their life; veterans from war and peace remember the drill sergeant who changed their life. Even Secretary of Defense William Perry, an enlisted soldier some years ago, remembers his drill sergeant with respect and admiration. As Sergeant Major of the Army Gene McKinney reminded them, they must live the NCO Creed: No one is more professional than the NCO, all soldiers are entitled to outstanding leadership, and our NCOs will provide that leadership. NCOs are the backbone of the Army— always have been and always will be. The Army’s success today and in the future has been, and always will be, the result of our NCOs’ enforcement of the Army standards of mutual respect, teamwork, and honor. –p. 99

The Army has earned the admiration of the nation and the world. From Bosnia to Korea to Kuwait to the Olympics to forest fires, floods, and storms, soldiers trained by our drill sergeants have performed magnificently. The Army’s drill sergeants should justifiably feel proud of their part in this success. Drill sergeants accomplish minor miracles. They are charged with the tremendously difficult and absolutely critical task of turning our nation’s young men and women into professional soldiers who can fight and win on the battlefield, soldiers who are worthy of being called “our Nation’s credentials.” Drill sergeants do more than touch the future of our Army—they make it. –pp. 98, 154


While we change, we must continually provide trained and ready forces that are needed every day to support

the nation’s strategic requirements. The world permits no “time-outs” in preparing for the future. There has been over a 300 percent increase in the tempo at which we use ground forces since the end of the Cold War. We do not expect that pace to slow appreciably in the years ahead. So we must be prepared to develop future capabilities and, at the same time, be ever ready to place our soldiers in harm’s way with the absolute confidence that we have done everything required to best prepare them for the job. As President Harry S. Truman reminded the nation after World War II, “We must be prepared to pay the price of peace, or assuredly we will pay the price of war.” –pp. 110, 116; Cong. Test., Feb. 24, 1999

At the outbreak of WWII, the United States was suddenly caught in a strategy and forces mismatch, where our national interests far exceeded the capabilities of our forces. The great leaders of the Second World War, men like Generals Marshall and McNair, demonstrated remarkable leadership in creating an Army to fight a global war on very short order. They implemented new organizations, equipment, doctrine, and training methods overnight. They devised field trials to experiment with ideas and test men and machines. In winning, they also suffered 586,628 casualties. I could not but help wonder how different the campaign in Europe might have been if we had given these leaders more time and resources to prepare for the future, to develop the right equipment and right organizations so that we were prepared to mobilize for the crisis.

In August 1945, the American Army was the largest and most powerful Army in the world. Its 89 divisions had been instrumental in destroying the military might of the Axis powers—a tribute to the millions of brave men and women who served and the tremendous capabilities of corporate America. However, by June 1950, America’s Army had been reduced to a shell of its former self. We had rapidly gone from 89 divisions and eight million soldiers to 10 divisions and less than 600,000 soldiers. In 1950 we learned that deterrence is in the eye of the beholder. The North Koreans looked at South Korea and were not deterred by the 10 understrength and ill-equipped American divisions. Once again we were surprised and once again we paid a very steep price for our unpreparedness. As General Abrams said in 1973, “We paid dearly for our unpreparedness during those early days in Korea with our most precious currency—the lives of our young men. The monuments we raise to their heroism and sacrifice are really surrogates for the monuments we owe ourselves for our blindness to reality, for our

General Dennis J. Reimer: 1995–1999


indifference to real threats to our security, and our determination to deal in intentions and perceptions, for our unsubstantiated wishful thinking about how war could not come.”

American history has shown, time and time again, that we have asked soldiers to go into harm’s way on short notice to defeat a determined and dangerous foe. When that happens, we must be satisfied that we have done our best to prepare them for the task at hand and ensure that they have the very best weapons and equipment the country can afford.

We must always have an Army of sufficient quality and size to deter potential adversaries and meet our international obligations. We have reached the limit on how small our Army can be and still credibly accomplish the tasks currently assigned to us. Numbers matter. No amount of training or abundance of sophisticated equipment will suffice if we do not have enough quality soldiers to carry out the nation’s bidding. To accomplish our missions many of our soldiers have had back-to-back deployments and extended separations from their families. The average American soldier assigned to a troop unit now spends 138 days a year away from home—and many special units such as MPs, air defense, and transportation have been carrying a heavier load. To accomplish the requirements of our national security strategy, we must be a credible and effective ground fighting force. Today we do not have the luxury of time—nor will we in the future. We must be ready to deal with the world asitis,notaswewishittobe.Wehavepaidthe price—in blood—too often to relearn that lesson.

Peace is the harvest of preparedness. As George Marshall said at the end of World War II, “We are now concerned with the peace of the entire world. And peace can only be maintained by the strong.” –pp. 7, 8, 110, 29; Cong. Test., March 13, 1997, and March 24, 1999

Recruiting and Retention

The Army is blessed with an outstanding corps of professional recruiters who have done a tremendous job of bringing young men and women into the force. Supporting the respond pillar of the National Military Strategy requires above all else, a trained and ready force. Meeting this responsibility starts with recruiting high-quality soldiers. The Army is a learning organization, and that learning is the key to success and personal and professional growth. Potential recruits, and their parents, will see the valuable experience the Army provides.

Be as supportive as you can of our recruiting effort. If you are traveling around and you go by a recruiting station, stop in. Just say hello to those sergeants and the officers out there and tell them that they are doing a great job. They will love to see you. I do that every once in a while, and I think you will be as impressed as I am if you go in there and talk to them. Those recruiters work eighteen hours a day, in many cases six or seven days a week. That is what they have to do in order to make mission. They would appreciate you just stopping by and saying hello—and saying thank you. –pp. 228, 191; Cong. Test., Feb. 10, 1998

The very high reenlistment rates among units that have conducted the most frequent operational deployments under harsh and dangerous conditions say a lot about the professionalism of American soldiers. Our men and women know that they are well trained. They have the tools to put that training into practice. Most important, they believe their effort and sacrifice is making a difference, saving lives, protecting property, and contributing to freedom and prosperity in places where these words had no meaning until an American soldier stood behind them.

Our soldiers sacrifice a great deal to serve their country. It is our obligation to provide them and their families with fair and adequate pay, quality medical care, safe and affordable housing, and stable retirement benefits. We may enlist soldiers, but we retain families. We continue to ask so much of the Army Family every day—they deserve a quality of life equal to that of the society they have pledged their lives to defend. –pp. 102, 10; Cong. Test., Feb. 10, 1998

The Reserve Components

Our approach to Total Army integration must be consistent with our National Military Strategy and the strategic requirements for landpower. In this respect, we must thoroughly understand and appreciate the unique contributions of each Army component. Each force has distinct attributes that best suit the specific needs of shaperespond, and prepare. Active forces are ideally suited for forward presence, global rapid response, and frequent or prolonged deployments. The Army Reserve contributes critical support units, power projection and training enablers, and individual soldiers to support the Total Army. The Army National Guard, through its primary emphasis on combat units, provides critical enablers that complete the Army’s capability to perform the full spectrum of

General Dennis J. Reimer: 1995–1999


potential missions. In addition to their warfighting missions, they man the frontlines for homeland defense and domestic emergency response.

The Army Reserve and the Army National Guard add resilience to the force, providing the Army with the means to rapidly expand and tailor its capabilities to match the strategic demand for land forces. The United States Army Reserve and Army National Guard, in fact, comprise 54 percent of America’s Army, by far the largest percentage in any of the Services. The Army could not function without them nor expand to meet the nation’s often-changing global responsibilities.

Total Army integration is not about how reserve component units can supplement or replace active units—it is a process of combining the three components to create the force our nation needs—it is all about quality—ensuring we have the best mix of forces available to get the job done. One Team, One Fight, One Future represents the Army’s concept for developing Total Army integration programs. More than just a slogan, these words reflect three ideas that are the core of our effort to provide the most effective and efficient landpower for the 21st century. The Army components must be supported, resourced, and modernized as one fully and completely integrated team. This team must function and fight together as a Total Army, with each component sharing in the duties and responsibilities of the nation’s defense. Most importantly, the team must draw on the knowledge, expertise, and wisdom of senior leaders from across the force to make the right decisions to prepare the Army to meet America’s future national security needs. These are the thoughts that stand behind our commitment to One Team, One Fight, One Future. – pp. 214, 215, 213

Fifty-three years ago, in one of the greatest examples of power projection the world has ever seen, we began the liberation of Europe with the invasion of Normandy. This enormous task commanded a total effort. In the first wave to hit OMAHA BEACH on D- Day, Regular Army soldiers from the Big Red One, the 1st Infantry Division, served alongside National Guard soldiers from the 116th Infantry Regiment, 29th Infantry Division—one team, one fight. Today elements of the 116th Infantry Regiment are at Fort Polk, Louisiana, preparing to return to Europe—this time to Bosnia—preparing once again to serve alongside the soldiers of the Big Red One. Fifty-three years have passed since we invaded Normandy, but it’s still the same tradition. It’s still the same teamwork. –p. 169

Our reserve component soldiers are our strongest link to the American people. The reserve components are the visible presence of America’s Army in our nation’s communities. The Army National Guard and Army Reserve expand the opportunities for every citizen to serve the nation and expand our nation’s power, making America equal to any challenge wherever and whenever it might appear. –pp. 212, 215


We know we have a great Army, but we also recognize keeping it great is no easy task; it requires tough, difficult choices, and one of the most difficult is how to balance requirements with resources. We have to do the best job with the resources we have. We owe that to the American taxpayer—and more importantly, we owe it to our soldiers.

America’s Army is cost-effective. Our Army receives less than 25 percent of the total Department of Defense budget. Spending on the entire Army accounts for less than 1 percent of GDP—the lowest level of spending since Pearl Harbor. Our reduced resourcing reflects both the change in the nation’s national security needs since the end of the Cold War, and the priority given to balancing the federal budget in order to maintain the health of our economy. And this shift has had a profound effect on our nation. Reduced defense expenditures have amounted to a peace dividend of $700 billion over the last decade. And this year for the first year in almost thirty years we have a balanced budget, a budget surplus, and a thriving economy. This should not be surprising, for during the same time, the Army has helped maintain peace and stability around the world, stability that has added almost 2 million jobs to the American economy.

–pp. 240, 10


The American people trust us in a way they trust nobody else. They give us their sons and daughters and they expect us to take care of them. They do not ask what we are going to do with them. They just expect us to do what is right. That is why the opportunity and responsibility to train these young men and women and to ensure they are prepared to do their mission when they deploy is so important. –p. 36

The end of the Cold War was a victory for the people of the world, and as a global leader we have an

General Dennis J. Reimer: 1995–1999


obligation to do what we can to make the next century safer and better than the one we are about to complete. You will deal with a wide range of responsibilities from warfighting to peacekeeping. That is a reflection of the world we live in. We are involved with shaping the future—shaping the future and making it better for our children and grandchildren—and what a wonderful opportunity that is—and what a great challenge. – Cong. Test., May 21, 1997; USMA, May 28, 1998


No one gives more than an Army soldier. In Bosnia, America’s Army undertook the difficult mission of bringing peace to an area of the world mired in ethnic hatred and civil war. There is no doubt that thousands of people in that area owe their lives to the sacrifices and service of our soldiers. The promise of a brighter future is also within their grasp and really up to the people in that land. I cannot imagine a greater gift to give than the one our soldiers are giving. What a great contribution to make to society. –pp. 229, 159, 184

Some soldiers win fame and honor on the battlefield. Others quietly contribute every day to winning the peace for us, our children, and our grandchildren. In Central Europe the accession of Poland and the Czech Republic to full NATO membership has been ably assisted by the hard work of our soldiers serving there. In Bosnia they endure considerable hardship in order to ensure that the people of that war-torn land have an opportunity for a future. No bands, no parades for them—but they know in their hearts that their efforts will help to assure peace in Europe and the world for the next generation. We’re so very fortunate to have them. –pp. 135, 184

Whatever we do—wherever we go—we must never forget it is all about the American soldier. They suffered at Valley Forge. They were the “first wavers” at OMAHA BEACH. They walked point in Ia Drang. They crushed the Iraqi Army. They separated warring factions in Bosnia. The secret of success for us is very simple; it’s the young men and women who serve in our Army today. These are wonderful, wonderful young men and women. –pp. 238, 227, 237

The most important and the “smartest” weapon in the Army’s defense arsenal is the soldier, carrying out the will of the nation. They ask for so little and they do so much for our Army and for the Nation. Ultimately, America’s soldiers will be the ones to achieve the

nation’s goals. The Army’s strength always has been, and always will be, the American soldier—our nation’s tired, cold, dirty, magnificent soldiers. –pp. 91, 160, 83; Cong. Test., Feb. 4, 1997, and March 13, 1997

The 8th ID in World War II: In September 1944, on the Crozon Peninsula, German MG Hermann Ramcke asked to discuss surrender terms with the American Army. General Ramcke was in his bunker. His staff brought the 8th Infantry Division’s Assistant Division Commander, BG Charles Canham, down the concrete stairway to the underground headquarters. Ramcke addressed Canham through his interpreter. He said, “I am to surrender to you. Let me see your credentials.” Pointing to the American infantrymen crowding the dugout entrance, Canham replied, “These are my credentials.” That sentiment is true today. Soldiers are our credentials! –p. iv

The Army has provided 220 years of selfless service to our nation. Millions of Americans have served in this great Army. They have accomplished a great deal and have made many sacrifices. The greatest and enduring lesson of our past is that people are the single most important element of any successful force. The great spirit, courage, selfless dedication, and commitment, so clearly demonstrated by American soldiers throughout history, have passed from generation to generation to the talented people that make up today’s Army. Today’s soldiers continue to make this the finest Army in the world. –p. 3; Cong. Test., Feb. 24, 1999

Soldiers come in all sizes, all colors, and from different races. There is not an adequate way to describe them. MacArthur did it best when he described him as “one of the world’s noblest figures, not only as one of the finest military characters, but also as one of the most stainless. His name and fame is the birthright of every American. In his youth and strength, his love and loyalty he gave all that mortality can give. He needs no eulogy from me or from any other man. He has written his own history…. When I think of his patience under adversity, of his courage under fire, and of his modesty in victory, I am filled with an emotion of admiration I cannot put into words. He belongs to history.” Wherever I have been in the last 37 years I have seen those soldiers of whom MacArthur spoke. They have done the nation’s bidding. They were a band of brothers; they sacrificed and served. “They have drained deep the chalice of courage,” and some gave, as Lincoln said, “The last

General Dennis J. Reimer: 1995–1999


full measure of devotion.” They made things better, and they made a difference. Soldiers—what a noble title. –pp. 276, 241–242, 279, 237

What a magnificent story Steven Spielberg tells in his film Saving Private Ryan. For me the most profound moment was when Private James Francis Ryan from Iowa was standing on the windswept cliffs of Normandy, by the sweeping fields of crosses and stars of David—youth long gone, the war and the terror of Normandy many years in his past—and he turned to his wife and said, “Tell me I’m a good man. Tell me I did a good job.” He had to know if saving him had been worth the sacrifice of Captain John Miller and a handful of brave men. But Saving Private Ryan was more than just a movie about Captain John Miller and the men who saved James Francis Ryan. It was about a generation who saved the world, a generation who gave us the priceless gift of freedom, and a generation that told us, as John Miller told James Francis Ryan at the end, “Earn it.” All of us who serve in the military today take that charge to heart. There are thousands of monuments to the American soldier from the bronze and marble monuments rising on the fields of Gettysburg to the simple crosses in Arlington. Each speaks to a special moment of service and sacrifice. Each reminds us of the men and women of America’s Army—working at a refugee center in Bosnia, standing guard at the DMZ in Korea—America’s sons and daughters—our most precious asset. It is in their eyes, in their hearts, and through their deeds that we answer James Francis Ryan. Yes, the American soldier has led a good life. –pp. 242, 237

Strategic Environment/Threats

Today’s global security environment remains complex and full of unknowns. No longer are we confronted with “a clear and present danger.” Traditional national and ethnic enmities will sustain the demand for high- technology weaponry, further retarding economic development while raising the cost of conflict. Ethnic divisions that were suppressed by the Cold War can erupt with suddenness and ferocity, as the tragedy in Bosnia-Herzegovina demonstrated all too vividly. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, and nuclear), the threat of terrorism, international crime, and drug trafficking pose a serious danger to the security of the United States and to global stability. Uneven economic development will prolong poverty throughout many

parts of the globe, promoting terrorism and malignant drug-based economies. The gap between rich and poor societies has expanded dramatically, separating nations and continents into fundamentally different worlds. We must also anticipate that our military forces will face transnational threats whose power, influence, and interests transcend borders. The pace of global urbanization is another issue of growing importance for military operations.

The current and projected security environments suggest many potential challenges from either states or individuals who comprise “transnational groups.” Faced with superior US conventional military power, potential foes are far more likely to seek out asymmetrical responses and countermeasures, avoiding our strengths and attacking our vulnerabilities. Potential foes may devise unique weapons or strategies that avoid direct confrontation with our combat forces and strike at our bases, diplomatic posts, economic interests, telecommunications, computer networks, or the American homeland. In addition, we may have to conduct many different types of military operations (working with the other Armed Services and federal agencies) possibly simultaneously with little or no reaction time.

Conflict today is marked by increased precision and firepower across expanded battlefield dimensions, increased speed and tempo, the ability to see the enemy at any time and anywhere and the means to take the battle to him continuously. Precision-guided munitions and high-technology weapons proliferation among developing nations will make future battlefields, even in the developing world, high-risk environments. Increasingly lethal weapons, along with enhanced sensors, sophisticated countermeasures, and reduced signature platforms will provide regional adversaries with capabilities that are disproportionate to overall force size or level of economic development. –pp. 5, 117, 207, 255; Cong. Test., March 13, 1997


Teamwork, the ability to work together for a common cause, is critical to everything the Army does. The breadth and depth of Army operations, the many ways we use our force to secure the safety of the American people, demand a high level of teamwork. We have to be able to take soldiers with diverse backgrounds and experience and combine them into effective, cohesive

General Dennis J. Reimer: 1995–1999


teams, often very quickly under stressful and dangerous conditions. And we must form these teams constantly and unendingly, building teamwork, and then forming new teams to meet every mission.

Shared standards and shared experiences create the cohesion that is extremely important to building trust among soldiers. When that experience is done to standard, it builds cohesion and teamwork. Teammates complement one another’s strengths and compensate for one another’s limitations. The result is a unit whose performance as a whole is greater than the sum of the individual efforts of its members.

Teamwork is absolutely essential for units to fight and win on the battlefield or to perform other critical, tough missions. Soldiers have to know that they can rely on each other and their leaders; this fact mandates mutual trust and respect. Soldiers who don’t treat each other with respect cannot be relied upon to risk their lives for each other on the modern battlefield. Developing these values—this discipline and teamwork in soldiers—takes both time and resources, but it is a necessary process.

The Army must create an environment where all soldiers, regardless of race or gender, feel that they are vital members of the team. The Army is a diverse organization. There is great strength in this diversity and we can only leverage that strength when everybody feels they are a valued member of the team. We have been successful for 221 years because of the strong bond of trust and confidence shared by our soldiers. This trust and confidence is based on our commitment to Army values, discipline, and teamwork. These fundamentals have been the touchstone for our efforts during the last year and the azimuth for the path we will take to the future. –pp. 163, 251, 164, 247, 163, 154, 231; Cong. Test., March 13, 1997

As I think back over my 37 years of military service, I have learned that the Army’s waxing and waning has had less to do with the resources available than with our commitment to pull together. The Army is at heart a community, a community of active, National Guard and Reserve soldiers, civilian employees, and their families. Communities thrive when people care about one another, work for the common good, and trust one another. Today’s Army is seeded with this spirit and sense of community, the commitment to address our shortfalls and build upon our strengths. I am optimistic about the future and convinced that because we hold tight to a strong tradition of commitment to one another, we are and will remain the best army on Earth. –pp. 246, 217


There is a tremendous synergy that you get from being able to know where all the friendly forces are 100 percent of the time and being able to locate a large number of the enemy all of the time. It enables you to do certain things that you never have done before on the battlefield. The tactical agility associated with this type of knowledge gives you the speed necessary to turn within the enemy’s decision cycle. By ensuring that the right force is at the right place at the right time we have the power necessary to accomplish any mission.

I traveled to the National Training Center with Secretary of Defense William Cohen and we visited the task force operations centers and the operations officer talked to him about situational awareness. He said, “You know, before we had situational awareness, before we were able to answer the questions, ‘Where am I?’ ‘Where are my buddies?’ and ‘Where is the enemy?’ I spent 70 percent of my time gathering information, and 30 percent of my time trying to make a recommendation or give advice to the command. With situational awareness, that’ s reversed. I now spend 30 percent of my time gathering information and 70 percent analyzing it and making recommendations.” That is powerful. –pp. 73, 269, 126–127, 142

The key to winning future wars is learning how to use information systems to best advantage. Getting the most out of our future force will not happen without deliberate, disciplined effort. Technology can become a straitjacket for the military mind as easily as it can be used to unleash the power of our soldiers. During the Vietnam War, helicopters could whisk commanders to any battlefield at any time. Some used this technology to extend their control over subordinate leaders. We called them “squad leaders in the sky.” We must be smarter than that! Leading in the Information Age requires new trust and confidence—trust in technology and the confidence to share information and decisionmaking. New information systems serve as “enablers” for shared understanding, trust, and synergy. They allow for rapid and accurate commander’s intent dissemination and promote immediate group discussion and interaction to foster high-quality, effective battlefield performance. Without discipline, accumulating masses of data through information technology can quickly lead to over-centralized decisionmaking. We must have the trust and confidence to empower leaders at all levels

General Dennis J. Reimer: 1995–1999


with information, allowing them to exercise their good judgment and initiative. –pp. 247–248, 175

Information Age technology offers the Army the opportunity to greatly enhance mobility, lethality, and communications. There is much talk about what technology is going to give us—and it will—to a point. Technology is critical but it will not change the fundamental principles of war or the foundations upon which the institution of the Army rests. The cornerstone of America’s Army will continue to be quality soldiers who possess a strong sense of values. To some the idea of Information Age warfare conjures up images of bloodless conflict, images that resemble a computer game more than the bloody wars we have known in the past. Nothing could be further from the truth. The style of warfare will change, but its impact on nations, armies, and soldiers will not. The fates of nations and armies will still be decided by war, but with speed and lethality unmatched in the past. It is also false to believe that new technology will automatically result in large-scale reductions in the size of the Army. All these capabilities that we talked about—to reassure, to support, to deter, and to compel—are embedded in the United States Army. But they require boots on the ground. Whatever technological and operational changes may occur, however, soldiers will always be the key to victory. We’ll keep our combination of high technology and quality soldiers. It’s unbeatable. –pp. 160, 91, 74, 46

The Total Army

The first and oldest Army tradition is our citizen- soldier heritage. The idea of the citizen-soldier is the heart of republican democracy. This tradition recognizes that citizenship carries both rights and responsibilities. Foremost among our responsibilities is each citizen’s obligation to serve the common good and, when necessary, to take up arms in the common defense. The opportunity and honor to serve this great country are an essential part of what binds us together as one people. A clear but bitter lesson of the Vietnam War is that when America fights with anything less than a Total Army effort, we diminish ourselves. Committing the T otal Army is an unmistakable statement of our nation’s purpose, a bold declaration to any foe that they are facing the resolve of all Americans. Learning this lesson well after the Vietnam War, Army Chief of Staff General Creighton W. Abrams restructured the force, ensuring that in future conflicts America’s Army would fight the first battle

together. This fundamental concept remains at the core of the Army’s traditions.

Today’s Army is a multidimensional team. It is composed of active component, Army National Guard, United States Army Reserve, Department of the Army Civilians, as well as many different races and creeds, men and women. Our unity as a total force is evident when I travel and talk to soldiers. When I ask them, “Where are you from?” or ask them whether they are Army National Guard, Army Reserve, or active component, they really do not care. The soldiers always focus on the fact that they are wearing U.S. Army tags on their BDUs.

We can be optimistic about the future. We know that in peace and war we must always depend on each other. As a smaller Army, it is more important than ever that we leverage the capabilities of entire force (active, Reserve, and civilian), our nation’s industrial base, and the academic genius of our learning institutions. We are one Army whose sum is far greater than any of its parts. We must maximize the unique capabilities and talents each component brings to the warfighting table. Our commitment to one another is the key to remaining the best Army in the world. –pp. 213, 166, 193, 217, 4

Tradition and Heritage

Values and traditions are the soul of the Army. For over two hundred years, from Bunker Hill, to Gettysburg, to the Bulge, and on to Somalia, these values and traditions were forged by the harsh and unforgiving flames of combat. The Army and its soldiers draw strength from our values and traditions. They are and will always be our anchor in difficult and turbulent times. They inspire us to do what is right, day-in and day-out, in peace and in war. They are the keys to our success in the future. –pp. 162, 239, 173

Ours is a profession filled with glorious traditions and as we move to the future, we shall build on those great traditions. Tradition and ceremony are the torch by which we pass the light of our Army values from one generation of soldiers to the next. We need to keep that torch burning brightly to light our way into the 21st century.

General Jonathan Wainwright, when he surrendered at Corregidor and as he brought the American flag down for the last time, folded that flag and gave it to a young soldier and said, “Young man, carry this flag and when it’s all over give it to the Secretary of War.”

General Dennis J. Reimer: 1995–1999


The soldier took that flag and he carried it to his death. Before he died, he gave it to a second soldier who was so weak that he could not carry the whole flag, but he took a scissors and cut a piece of cloth from the flag and sewed it inside his field jacket and true to his charge, he carried it to the end of his ordeal. He presented the patch of cloth to the Secretary of War. Today that tattered piece of the red, white, and blue hangs silently on the walls of the museum at West Point and speaks volumes about the courage, the selfless service, and the sacrifice of our soldiers. It speaks volumes about the spirit of an Army that couldn’t be beaten, no matter what the odds.

Why do we keep going back to memories of the past? Because today’s soldiers are linked to the soldiers of the past. There’s a brotherhood in history. We must never, never forget their lessons. –pp. 169, 38, 168


At 1607 hours on 26 February 1991, Captain H. R. McMaster led a nine-tank formation across a desolate part of the southern Iraqi desert. As McMaster crested a small rise, he encountered nine Iraqi T-72s dug in on the reverse slope. In a short fight lasting only 28 minutes, 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment’s E Troop destroyed 28 Iraqi tanks, eight BMP Soviet armored personnel carriers, and nearly 50 other vehicles. This action and others like it during Operation DESERT STORM and missions in Rwanda, Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia have earned the U.S. Army the reputation as the best-trained army in the world. The execution that earned this reputation, however, was not an accident and did not occur overnight. One of the most important lessons learned from DESERT STORM was that the war was not won in 100 hours or 9 months. Developing the combination of people and equipment that performed so magnificently in that operation took us more than 15 years. DESERT STORM’s success was not magic, but rather the direct result of tough, realistic, training honed to a razor’s edge at home station and in our Combat Training Center (CTC) program. –p. 51

Commanders in Bosnia are blazing new trails. They are dealing with the challenges of how you separate warring factions and build trust in an environment previously devoid of it. There are no school solutions about any of these problems and in fact the people on the ground are writing the book. Yet, no one seems daunted by the challenge. There are a lot of reasons

for that. First and foremost, the soldiers have been well trained. They are confident. I talked to a number of them and they all told me that they had not experienced any surprises. Pre-deployment training had been tough but realistic. This is the proof of the pudding and Bosnia validates the need for tough, realistic training. –p. 22

Our CTC program is the crown jewel of the Army training program. CTCs are about training hard and learning. What really counts is how much units learn and improve during the course of a cycle. By that measure, units are still learning the vital skills that will make them winners on the battlefield. By that measure, learning is winning. The CTCs provide units with a focused, distraction-free, and realistic training environment unavailable at home station. Additionally, the CTCs provide a high-quality, experienced cadre of observers, controllers, and opposing forces that also cannot be replicated at home station. The teaching, coaching, and mentoring they provide is one of the greatest benefits of the process. We never attempt to compare one unit’s performance against another. There are two reasons for this. First, the conditions are never the same and, more importantly, we must protect the integrity of the after action review process. I firmly believe that our AARs are both unique and the true strength of our training process. The minute soldiers and leaders feel that they are going to be criticized for their mistakes we will change the learning and assessment process of the CTC program to an evaluation process and we will destroy the goodness of what we are doing there. –pp. 202, 199

FM 25-101 states that the CTCs were designed “to provide the most realistic training short of combat.” We want this experience to be the toughest experience our soldiers will ever have to endure—“the more we sweat in training the less we bleed in war.” In meeting this objective they have been a remarkable success. The CTCs give us the unique ability to synchronize all elements of the combined arms team in an environment that closely approximates combat.

The sophistication of the CTCs has increased by “an order of magnitude” since the end of the Cold War, but continues to be focused on tough, realistic, high- intensity combat. We need to begin to look at expanding their role in training for the asymmetrical threats we anticipate our soldiers will face in the years ahead. This training will not dilute or detract from our warfighting focus, but it will place additional emphasis on emerging threats, such as urban combat, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the

General Dennis J. Reimer: 1995–1999


greater intermingling of combatants and noncombatants on the battlefield. –pp. 55, 199; Cong. Test., Feb. 10, 1998

More training is not always better training. I do not believe we can do more with less. However, I do believe we must get the best out of what we get. Fewer but higher-quality training events are more important than ensuring every moment on the training schedule is chock full of activity. Sometimes less is better. Former Army Chief of Staff General Gordon R. Sullivan’s adage that “More is not better, better is better,” is true today.

The Army must move more toward a “continuum of training.” Training realism must be achieved at home and at the CTCs. Commanders must train within the band of excellence throughout the year. Home-station training plays a large role in sustaining readiness within that band of excellence. CTC rotations should not be viewed as “Superbowl” events. Our Army never has an “off-season.” –pp. 248–249, 54, 55


Values and strong bonds are what make soldiers successful and inspire the sense of purpose necessary to sustain our soldiers in combat and help them deal with the demanding requirements of all other military operations. Values are at the core of everything our Army is and does. The ethical revolution after Vietnam again reminded us of the vital importance of our core values: Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless service, Honor, Integrity and Personal courage. You can remember those because the first letter of each word spells out the abbreviation “LDRSHIP.” We don’t want you just to remember those words, we want you to live them, we want you to lead from up front in all that you do. As Drill Sergeant of the Year SFC Mark Barnes said, “How you inspire and lead has a lot to do with what obstacles soldiers can overcome.”

pp. 78, 114, 123, 113, 111, 276, 253

The values on which we have created the premier land combat force in the world will be critical to our success in the years ahead. Values are the solid foundation upon which the Army is built, values which define the fundamental character of the United States Army. In the future, a source of strength will be these values. They are the signposts that will guide us from the past to the future. They are the constant that makes

a difference. Values and traditions have sustained us for 222 years—through the good times and the bad. They sustain us today, and God willing, so will it always be. –pp. 123, 169, 14

Leaders of character and competence live Army values. They build and maintain an Army where people do what is right, treat others as they themselves want to be treated, and where everyone can truly be all they can be. You have to spend time discussing values, explaining to new soldiers coming into the Army what values are all about, and reinforcing those values to all soldiers on a daily basis through leadership, action, and example. Internalizing these values—living them—is what builds professional soldiers. –pp. 83, 114, 161, 162

Values that emphasize only individual self-interest are cold comfort in times of hardship and danger. Rather, the Army emphasizes “shared” values, the values that make individuals reach beyond themselves. Army values build strong, cohesive organizations that, in turn, become the source of strength and solidarity for the team. –p. 251

We must recognize the importance of balancing moral and physical courage. Physical bravery is without question an important part of being a soldier. There will always be a special place for the extraordinary heroism that is the legacy of American soldiers in battle. But bravery in battle is only part of what makes a successful soldier. Soldiering is also about the moral courage reflected in the discipline and mental toughness to handle both lethal and nonlethal engagements. Today’s soldiers must be able to implement disciplined rules of engagement under stressful and demanding conditions. Our soldiers’ performance in Bosnia is an outstanding example of the other “face” of courage. –p. 247

Don’t ever forget your values—Duty, Honor, Country“Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be. They are your rallying points to build courage when courage seems to fail, to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith, to create hope when hope becomes forlorn.”* Over 37 years, from Vietnam to the Pentagon, those three hallowed words, Duty, Honor, Country, have never failed me. They won’t fail you either. –p. 276 * GEN Douglas MacArthur

General Dennis J. Reimer: 1995–1999



From World War II we learned that victory in battle really comes from a balance in moral and material strength. Our industrial base gave us the weapons of war, but it was the support, the energy, and the initiative and sacrifice of the American people, and our friends and allies around the world, that enabled us to endure.

To Americans the terrible struggle in Korea will always remain foremost for us a lesson in the cost of unpreparedness. The outbreak of the Korean War was a bitter reminder that the lack of a modernized, capable military force in a troubled world is not a good precursor for peace. In contrast, Vietnam taught us that the lack of strong moral unity, within the nation—within the service itself—with friends and allies—can be equally devastating in war. After the twin lessons of Korea and Vietnam—the American Army entered the 1980s with introspection and renewed determination. The result was an impressive performance in DESERT STORM. This success was a combination of material improvement, and equally important, moral reinforcement through training, through an emphasis on values of service to the nation, through closer ties to our citizens, through teamwork with our coalition partners.

And from DESERT STORM we have learned more lessons about the balance of material and moral forces—both requirements for today and the future. DESERT STORM demonstrated that material strength alone is not a guarantor of victory. All weapons have their limitations. Precision-guided munitions, for example, made significant contributions but they are not the solution to every military problem. As the potential of future threats demonstrates, no thinking adversary, even one substantially overmatched in conventional military power, will allow an opponent to execute a plan unchecked. They will develop countermeasures and asymmetrical responses. War is constant struggle of action and counteraction between two determined foes. This is a lesson we will never forget.

DESERT STORM also reinforced the importance of the link between soldiers and citizens. For example, during the war we had a critical shortage of tires for our heavy trucks. It turned out there was only one manufacturer for the tires in the whole country. This private company immediately offered to contact its dealers throughout the nation and ask them to ship whatever stocks they had to the nearest airport. In Waco, Texas, there was a local tire salesman named Ken Oliver who had 74 tires. When he heard of the

Army’s need, he rented a cargo trailer with his own money, hooked it up to his pickup truck, and drove all night to the closest air force base. He said that he had “figured our troops must have needed those tires as quickly as possible and he didn’t want waste any time getting them there.” DESERT STORM truly reflected the commitment and resolve of the American people when they are behind a noble and just cause. That in essence is how America sees its Army. –pp. 145, 146

Vision and the Future

We must build the Army of tomorrow, the Army that will be required to meet the needs of a vastly different world. The secret of future victories lies in what we do today to prepare the force for the tasks ahead. Our vision of the Army is a direct legacy of the bloody lessons learned on the battlefield. A vision that is rooted in the tradition of 224 years of selfless service and mission accomplishment—a vision that will ensure our ability to meet the nation’s needs of the 21st century: trained and ready, a force of quality soldiers and civilians; values-based, an integral part of the joint team, equipped with the most modern weapons and equipment, able to respond to our nation’s needs, changing to meet the challenges of today, tomorrow, and the 21st century. Whatever surprises the new millennium may have in store one thing is certain—we can look to our roots, to our legacy as the “Sword of the Republic,” to help us prepare our Army for the future. –pp. 8, 9, 3, 34; Cong. Test., Sept. 29, 1998

In the United States we have a flourishing market of futurists—respected thinkers who tell us how the world will be in the next century. But mostly what they do is extend current trends to the future—and depending on which trends they pick, we are either entering a coming age of anarchy or the end of history. But our past tells us that the future is not a trend. It is something we fashion with our own hands. –p. 147


God bless our great soldiers, past and present. God bless the great Nation they serve. –p. 171

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s