Rumsfeld tells critics to sit on it.

Rumsfeld: Military is evolving
By Donald H. Rumsfeld



When he assumed office, President Bush announced that he wanted the Defense Department to transform, to better face a century of new challenges. We began that effort before 9/11, motivated by the understanding that we live in an era that will be characterized by surprise and uncertainty.

What we have found in four years, in dozens of town hall meetings with military and civilian personnel all over the world, is a department of about 3 million dedicated professionals proud to serve their country. The men and women in uniform are putting their lives at risk for our country. Many have paid the ultimate price, and I honor their service and the sacrifice and dedication of their families and loved ones. It is on their behalf that we must do all we can to develop a military designed to meet the challenges of this era.

We have learned that this wonderful institution is, in many ways, still organized, trained and best equipped for the more conventional challenges of the past century, when wars were conducted largely between large navies, armies and air forces.

The enemies we face today, for the most part, do not have large standing forces or, in some cases, even territory to defend. They know they cannot defeat us on the battlefield, so they choose to fight us in less-conventional ways ?- ways that play to their strengths, not ours.

We owe our forces the utmost sense of urgency in the tough process of transforming to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

The armor issue

In recent days, much has been made of a question I received from a National Guard soldier at a town hall meeting in Kuwait about armor on Army vehicles. His question was a fair one, and I share his impatience. Our forces must have the equipment they need, and the department is working hard to ensure that they get it. The Army has arranged to have the production of armored Humvees ramped up by more than 1,000% since mid-2003, when the enemy began to use improvised explosive devices (IEDs) against our forces in Iraq.

U.S. troops are facing a thinking enemy ?- an enemy that adapts its tactics to circumstances on the ground. We must do the same, as is always the case in warfare.

When we entered Iraq in March 2003, U.S. military commanders correctly believed that they would need a highly mobile and flexible force to quickly capture Baghdad and defeat the regime. What those forces accomplished, under Gen. Tommy Franks' war plan, will go down as one of history's great military campaigns.

Once the coalition had taken Baghdad and begun the transition to Iraqi sovereignty, the enemy adapted by targeting coalition forces with car and roadside bombs.

Our forces adapted to these new tactics with a variety of changes in their tactics and procedures and also by increasing the production of armored Humvees, from about 35 per month to about 450 per month. In addition, Army experts designed armor kits to retrofit vehicles that were not designed for the added weight capability, and they were able to expand the civilian and military industrial base by several multiples of original capacity. In addition, the monthly production of personal body armor has been increased by more than twentyfold.

Changes since 9/11

A post-9/11 world has required the U.S. military to make many changes ?- changes that weren't contemplated in the heady years of the 1990s, after the end of the Cold War. For example, today the department is buying more Predator aircraft and more precision munitions than anyone thought would be needed before 9/11.

Working with Congress, the department canceled at least two multibillion-dollar Cold War-era Army weapons systems: the Crusader artillery system and the Comanche helicopter. Undoubtedly, others will be considered. Any changes will most likely be opposed by special interests wedded to their systems, but nonetheless, we must continue to shift resources so we will be more adept at meeting today's challenges.

Also, during successive decades of national security policymaking, the government decided that it made sense to place large percentages of our war-fighting capability into the reserve component of the armed forces. What may have made sense during the Cold War makes less sense today, when it is clear that we need more of those skills ?- such as military police, logisticians, civil affairs specialists ?- as part of the active force. The fact is, with some 2.4 million Americans serving in some uniformed capacity (active, Guard and Reserve), it is not that we have too little military personnel, but rather that the skill sets are not well apportioned among active, Guard and Reserve forces for today's needs.

We are in a new century, and we have to make sure that we are organized and equipped for this new century. Our forces have adapted with impressive skill and courage, and they remain the most capable forces in history.

We will keep America secure by continuing to adapt to the changing nature of conflicts ?- as our proud history has demonstrated in previous wars and our forces are working to do in Iraq ?- and by maintaining a steadfast will to prevail over those extremists who seek to deny the freedom of others and to turn back to the dark world of beheadings and assassinations.

Source