proven invaluable during peace and indispensable during war. Last year, we proposed legislation to make the vice chairman a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a proposal supported by the secretary of defense and all of the chiefs, as well as this committee. I continue to believe strongly that this is a sound proposal and one that makes eminent sense, given the significant roles and responsibilities assigned to the vice chairman, and I urge the Congress to enact this needed legislation without any restrictions or constraints.

nent increased along with the active force structure because we sought to be better prepared for the contingency of fighting a massive short-warning war against the Warsaw Pact in Central Europe. That threat is gone. We are eliminating large portions of the Army's active structure to reflect this new reality. Retaining Army reserve forces at previous levels, designed for a different and far larger threat, makes no sense strategically or fiscally.

To maintain these levels, we would be forced to reallocate funds from other critical areas operations, training, maintenance or procurement — solely for the purpose of funding force structure we do not need. This risks a return to the "hollow" forces of the past -unable to execute assigned missions when called upon. Ultimately, it would increase the risk to our servicemen and women, and to our nation.

It has now been over five years since the passage of the GoldwaterNichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act. GoldwaterNichols has enhanced the role of the chairman of the ICS (Joint Chiefs of Staff) by making him the principal military adviser to the president, the National Security Council and the secretary of defense. It has enabled me and the other members of the JCS to provide the best military advice possible in a most responsive fashion.

The Final Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf Conflict, which will soon be released to you, outlines in greater detail how the Goldwater-Nichols Act and its impact on the Defense Department contributed to the success of Operation Desert Storm. It helped to provide the Cinc (commander in chief) with the authority he needed to organize and employ his forces quickly and decisively to defeat Iraq and liberate Kuwait. It also clarified the roles of the CinCs, services and defense agencies, which enhanced the timely provision of assistance to USCinCCENT (Central Command) when and where needed.

As you know, GoldwaterNichols also created the position of the vice chairman, which has

Unified Command Plan

Title 10, U.S. Code, requires the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to review periodically the unified command plan for missions, responsibilities and force structure for the combatant commands and to recommend to the president, through the secretary of defense, any changes to the UCP as may be necessary. The current review of the UCP has been completed and will soon be forwarded to the president. The most significant proposal was the elimination of the Strategic Air Command as a specified command and the establishment of the U.S. Strategic Command as a new unified command, consolidating operational command of all strategic nuclear forces under USCinCSTRATCOM. USSTRATCOM is expected to stand up on 1 June 1992.

America's armed forces today are the best this nation has ever fielded. They have served and sacrificed for their country. To preserve this excellence in a period of shrinking resources requires careful planning and firm priorities.

My most critical priority remains the same people. During my tenure as chairman, this nation has demanded and received tremendous sacrifices from our dedicated men and women military and civilian. During Desert Storm, we had Marines sitting aboard their amphibious ships for almost 10 months, much of that time waiting to go into battle. We have had units that spent two,

three and even four Christmases away from their homes and families. We have had dedicated civilians who worked around the clock to support

our military forces, in peace and war. And now, as much as we appreciate their sacrifice and dedication, we must tell many of these same men and women that they are no longer needed — their job is done.

A million people, civilian and military, will be released from the rolls of the Defense Department by 1996. Most are not leaving voluntarily; they are happy with the career they have chosen. We must do all we can to ease the transition of these dedicated public servants into productive civilian occupations.

Equipment and training are the next two priorities. We must continue to ensure that our forces are the best equipped and best trained in the world. This means adequate investment in research and development to maintain our qualitative edge and preventing short-sighted reductions in operations and maintenance accounts reductions which would have to come straight out of training and readiness — in order to achieve false savings in the budget.

Finally, we must continue to exhibit the kind of leadership at all levels that contributed to the success of Desert Storm. From the clear strategic guidance given the military by our commander in chief down to the leadership demonstrated by unit commanders at the tactical level, Desert Storm set the example for the future. The leadership demonstrated by this committee and by the Congress in supporting our men and women deployed to Southwest Asia was also a key to our success, as has been your support throughout these past many years.

In conclusion ... both our strategy and our force structure have been carefully crafted to preserve our military strength in a time of fiscal austerity, reduced threat, but residual dangers. We are fully committed to implementing the reductions directed by the president in a prudent and balanced fashion...

Published for internal information use by the American Forces Information Service, a field activity of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), Washington, D.C. This material is in the public domain and may be reproduced without permission.

follow the drum and, with a little luck, pick up their back pay and discharges and go home to continue their lives — to train and to wait for the next time.

For some there is no next time. We have a Marine Reserve 155(mm howitzer) battery in Richmond (Va.) that sent the guns and 160 people to the gulf. There are cops and firemen and clerks, but about a third of the unit are students from the universities in the Richmond area.

They came back with a unit citation and one KIA (killed in action) and one WIA (wounded in action), both students. We in the ESGR (Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve) must work to make sure these people who face the ultimate risk have something worthwhile to come home to.

Good afternoon. Some things never change, even the military call-up. The message comes to the farmer in his field. He leaves his land and goes, once again, into combat because his country asks him to. When the hostilities are over, he returns to the farm and gets on with his life.

This time it is (458 B.C.) and the reservist's name is Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, called up to lead Rome's armies against barbarian invasions. Having saved Rome, he once again returned to his farm. This is probably the earliest recorded reserve call-up in history, and it marks the beginning of the tradition of the citizen-soldier. The men and women in the Guard and Reserves are inheritors of this long and noble tradition.

Long before the professional armies of Rome and Frederick the Great and Napoleon, reservists were fighting in battles that turned the tide of history. In 480 B.C., Athens called out the reserves to man the oars at Salamis, where the Persian empire's conquest of Greece was stopped.

At Lepanto (naval battle off Cyprus) in 1571, European citizensoldiers, along with the professionals, stopped the Turks from conquering Europe.

And of course, if it weren't for the militia units in Massachusetts who gathered at Concord Bridge to fire "the shot heard 'round the world," we would all be Canadians today.

I admire the part-time soldier; that's why I took this job. I have a profound respect for these civilians in uniform who come up at the call,

American Airlines alone sent 556 pilots and some 300 other personnel to active duty.

But it is not the Fortune 500 companies that need to be convinced of the worth of the citizensoldier. American Airlines was able to keep 95 percent of its schedule intact during the war. It's the midsized and smaller companies that we must reach. These are the organizations most likely to feel a detrimental business effect.

Yet, we must not allow these men and women to suffer hardship when they go on training programs or active duty, or sacrifice employment opportunities because of their military activities.

We are now in the final stages of a Cold War with the Soviet Union that has lasted almost half a century. No tank battalions stare each other down across the Fulda Gap in Germany ... no bomber crews at the ready.

Yet even with the Soviets and the U.S. on peaceful terms, the world continues to be a dangerous place. Fighting continues in Guatemala, Myanmar, Yugoslavia, Soviet Georgia, Peru, Somalia and at least a dozen other places.

No one really knows what the future will bring with regard to the ethnic tensions in Central and Eastern Europe or in the Mideast. Yet we are beginning a massive reduction in our armed forces and spending "the peace dividend," whatever in the world that is.

The final composition of our active duty armed forces is not yet evident. But one thing is certain: The need for well-trained, wellmotivated Select Reserve forces will

Gulf Operations

We have just witnessed the greatest call-up of reserve forces in 50 years. Some 227,000 men and women were called up for the Persian Gulf. According to official sources, nearly a fifth of U.S. forces in the gulf were from the National Guard and the Reserves. What is most significant is the outstanding performance of the Guard and Reserve units.

Many called up are support units, combat engineers, transportation companies, MP (military police) companies and administrative support groups. The medical profession and the airlines are especially hard-hit on a major mobilization.

In fact, the pilots from all services are among the first called.

1

radio, it was the theme song of television specials, and I'm told that tanks and Bradleys played it over loudspeakers as they rolled through the Iraqi desert. Greenwood was surprised and delighted with the popularity. "I wrote that song in 1983," he said. "No one paid much attention to it until now."

We in the ESGR have an enormous reservoir of goodwill to capitalize on. We have good communication programs for employers, and we have dedicated volunteers in our organizations, at every level, to make these programs work.

be as critical as ever, in fact, maybe more so.

The combat arms will still need round-out brigades, and air services will still need qualified pilots, and the medical units will still need doctors and nurses.

In the event of a crisis, it will still be necessary to call on the citizensoldier to serve side by side with active duty personnel.

It is quite ironic that at the time of the drawdown in military forces and the need for Select Reserve units increases, employers are questioning the need for their employees to attend training periods. Without a Cold War bogeyman, enthusiasm of employers could diminish. It is our job to keep this from happening.

One positive thing that came out of the Persian Gulf war is the vastly increased visibility of the role of our Select Reserve forces. For the first time in many years, people witnessed great numbers of their friends and neighbors, fellow workers and business acquaintances putting on the uniform and going off to war.

The American people's enthusiasm and support for our armed forces has not been so high since World War II. The yellow ribbons everywhere, the patriotic songs and the packages and letters sent to "any serviceman or woman" were tangible evidence of the renewed American patriotism and faith in itself.

One of the most popular songs of the Persian Gulf war was Lee Greenwood's God Bless the USA. It was played constantly on the

regime or will on others. When others, in turn, see the need to arm themselves, these arms are instruments of defense and of justice, as we have seen in Kuwait.

To our nation's employers who are unwilling to be inconvenienced by having employees in the Guard or Reserve, I say this:

Whether these defensive weapons and armed forces are used in an actual war is totally divorced from the need of having them. A sword waiting in its scabbard is still a sword. The history of this country, and of the world, is strewn with unused weapons — weapons which fulfilled their real political purpose, when truly analyzed, by making war unnecessary or inadvisable.

The Guard and Reserves are vital links in our defense system. This is the message we in ESGR must convey to the nation's employers.

In my career, I have worked with many volunteer organizations. And I have always found that the success of the program is in absolute proportion to the enthusiasm of the people involved.

I have no doubt about the commitment and dedication of the ESGR volunteers. We have a message, we have the organization, and we have the ability. The only thing left is to get to work.

I began with an ancient Roman, and I will close with one: In (ca. 4th century A.D.), Vegetius, confronted with a lack of zeal for the support of a military establishment, warned his detractors by saying, "Who would desire peace should be prepared for war."

That is our message to U.S. employers. ...

Preparedness Best Defense

Now is not the time to lie back and rest. We must make the current goodwill work for us.

The recruiting needs of the Guard and Reserve units will be critical in the years to come, and the importance of these units are bound to increase. We must establish innovative means to reinforce this message to employers.

Our message is not complicated. We must tell employers that our need for combat readiness does not diminish because we are not now in a firefight. As (Secretary of Defense) Dick Cheney put it, "You don't give away your overcoat on the first warm, sunny day."

Despite what some people now say, advanced weapons and welltrained active and reserve armed forces do not cause wars. Wars are caused by political leaders dominated by ego, ambition and ideology who seek to impose their

Published for internal information use by the American Forces Information Service, a field activity of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Delense (Public Affairs), Washington, D.C. This material is in the public domain and may be reproduced without permission.

DEPARIMI

DEFENSE

Vol. 7 No. 7

ALDO LEKFY

APR 29 1932

Remarks delivered by Adm. David E. Jeremiah, USN, vice chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, to the 1991 Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict Symposium and Exposition, Washington, D.C., Dec. 9, 1991.

COVERNVENI DOL ONTS

... I'm delighted ... to lay the groundwork for this symposium by giving you an overview of our revised military strategy and force structure ....

These issues have drawn a lot of attention lately. It seems like every time I pick up a newspaper or turn on the television, some selfappointed expert is holding forth on where our strategy should go or how our armed forces should be restructured.

Today, I'm going to discuss the major changes we've made to our national military strategy. I'll explain why those changes have taken place and discuss their impact on our future force structure. Finally, I'll suggest to you some implications from all this especially with respect to our special operations forces.

Let me begin by explaining why our strategy has shifted. In its simplest terms, we've changed our strategy to match the profound changes that have taken place in the past few years.

During the Cold War, our military strategy focused on the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. Today, that has all changed. In just the past two years, we have seen the opening of the Berlin Wall, the fall of the Iron Curtain, the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the end of communist rule throughout Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

Other changes are occurring elsewhere as well. We've seen democracy take root in Latin America. New economic coalitions are emerging in Western Europe and the Pacific Rim. It appears

that, at last, peace may be returning to places like Cambodia, Central America and the Horn of Africa. Even the Middle East, home of some of the most intractable hostilities on Earth, seems to be moving slowly toward some kind of mutual accommodation.

Most of these trends sweeping the globe seem positive. But these changes are not free. Nor are they easy or painless. Almost every one of them exacts some kind of cost. Consider for just a moment the case of what used to be the Soviet Union.

Here is a huge country, spanning 11 time zones. For 40 years, it has been a military superpower. During the years of the Cold War, it challenged us across the board: militarily, politically, economically and ideologically.

It competed with us for scientific discoveries and technological prestige. It courted Third

World countries and bullied and undermined those who resisted it. And, of course, it led the Warsaw Pact, a military coalition unique in history in that its dual purpose was to threaten both the West and its own members.

what some would call the third world war of this century. And because of that victory, our principles and values are more secure

and more universally accepted

than probably any time in history. But now we worry about the new problems that may arise from the disintegration of the Soviet central government.

We worry about the severe economic problems already afflicting many parts of that huge country. Freedom is a wonderful thing. But you can't eat it. You can't wear it. You can't spend it. And it won't keep you warm. And so we worry that the seeds of democracy sprouting there can yet be strangled by authoritarian forces if economic or social conditions become too chaotic.

We worry what the international impact will be if the Soviet Union makes a final exit from the stage of history. Even during the darkest days of the Cold War, the Soviet Union promoted a kind of stability in international affairs. It often restrained some of its more reckless clients, if only because it wanted to avoid a confrontation with the United States. More recently, President (Mikhail Gorbachev has been a valuable partner in working toward world peace.

What will be the international ramifications if the Soviet Union ceases to exist? Some are suggesting that events as different as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the civil war in Yugoslavia and North Korea's drive for nuclear weapons are all related in some way to the eclipse of the Soviet Union.

We worry, too, that new repub

New Worries

Today, all that seems behind us. The Soviet Union is no longer our adversary. In fact, the new commonwealth declared yesterday seems now to have pushed the Soviet Union itself to the very brink of dissolution.

We regard this development with a mixture of joy and concern. We can be justifiably proud of our triumph in the Cold War. We won

1

But we do know that we must have adequate military forces ready to face whatever emerges.

lics, once part of the old Soviet Union, may be tempted into an intramural arms race. Ukraine has announced plans to create its own armed forces. Other republics may soon follow suit.

And finally, we are most concerned about the security, control and disposition of more than 27,000 nuclear warheads scattered across Soviet territory and the future employment of the Soviet scientists and technical people who built them. In the past few years, we have made great progress in eliminating the nuclear terror of the Cold War. We do not want those gains compromised.

My point is this: We applaud the changes taking place in the former Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe. We have promised them our friendship and our support as they dig themselves out from under the wreckage of communism. We are hopeful that in the long run, they will be more secure, more democratic and more prosperous.

peace on short notice. And even third-rate military powers now have access to ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction.

Other changes — and other problems - are waiting for us down the road. Recently, the Joint Staff completed a study that looks out to the year 2025. By then, the world's population will nearly have doubled, to almost 10 billion people. Right now, about 84 percent of the world's population lives in lesser-developed countries. By the year 2025, that will increase to over 90 percent 90 percent of a doubled population! And perhaps as much as 25 percent of the world's population will be hungry -- every day.

Many of the world's governments will be chronically unstable and unable to deal effectively with the economic, health, social and other problems of their peoples. Among industrialized states, we should expect fierce competition not only for things like petroleum, but perhaps also for other scarce resources as common as fresh water.

What all this means to us is this: We still face important challenges in the international arena. As a matter of fact, I like to describe our future security problem as being like a gladiator entering an arena.

In the past, our adversary - the Soviet Union - was always waiting for us in the center of the arena, armed and dangerous. Today, the arena is temporarily empty.

But around the perimeter of the arena is a series of doors, and behind each door is a potential adversary. And those adversaries are increasingly well armed. We don't know which door or combination of doors will fly open next.

Four Conclusions

Last year, we developed a new, forward-looking strategy to replace the Cold War strategy of the past 40 years. We assessed the changed conditions around the globe and looked also at the likely problems of the future. In doing so, we came to four important conclusions.

First, we concluded that recent events in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe had virtually eliminated the possibility of a general military confrontation with the Soviets. We do continue to respect the Soviet nuclear stockpile, and we will continue to pursue prudent modernization of our strategic offensive and defensive systems. But apart from this, our forces will not be based on a Soviet threat that no longer exists.

Our second conclusion was that our greatest military challenge in the future will come from regional contingency operations — to confront whatever emerges from those doors around the arena. In just the time Gen. (Colin) Powell has been chairman, we have had 14 crises requiring military forces.

We've needed them for everything from counternarcotics operations in Latin America to protection of American citizens in Liberia to humanitarian operations in Bangladesh, Turkey and the Philippines to war in the Persian Gulf. I have no doubt that new problems, across the entire spectrum from humanitarian intervention to shooting conflicts, await us in the future.

Not every regional crisis will involve us. We do not desire to be the world's policeman. But some will. And for these, we will need not only capable contingency forces but also the ability to deploy and

support them.

Challenges That Continue

But just because the former Soviet Union itself is no longer an immediate threat, the world hasn't suddenly become a safe and peaceful place. In fact, it would be foolish to predict at this point that all those changes taking place in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere around the world will be carried out in a stable, peaceful and orderly way.

Rather, judging by early returns, it almost seems that the opposite is true — as one can see in recent headlines from places like Yugoslavia, Zaire and Haiti. Just over a year ago, Saddam Hussein dramatically reminded us how regional troublemakers can disrupt the

Our third conclusion was that no new threat to our national existence, such as the Soviet Union once posed, could emerge without a period of strategic warning. This warning, of perhaps two or more years, would allow us to reconstitute larger forces, if necessary. To do this we must have an adequate industrial base.