A few days ago, I put on my favorite blue sports jacket for a graduation ceremony. My “Retired: Soldier For Life” lapel pin is always affixed to it. I’m proud of that pin and what it represents.
My 41 years of service are a fraction of the 250 years our Army celebrates today. But there are things from those 41 years that seem to me worth reflecting on as we step off tomorrow into our next 250 years of service to the nation.
There is nothing more complex and more demanding, nothing with higher stakes for our way of life than war. To be successful in that unpredictable clash of wills, the men and women we ask to manage that violence must be both trained and educated: trained to be the most skillful warriors on the battlefield and educated to be thoughtful, agile, and resilient. They must come to understand and embrace the values of our military profession. It has always been our people, not our weapons, that have truly set us apart from our adversaries.
Those we select and develop to lead our military should be both competent and they should be men and women of character. An Army with one but not the other of those qualities would be vulnerable and would not serve our country with the skill, honor, and integrity it requires.
Trust is the glue that holds us together. This is true on the battlefield, in our relationship with the American people, and in the relationship between the civilian and military leaders entrusted to manage our national security. We generate trust best when our Army upholds the values and principles on which the Constitution rests and when our Army reflects the society it serves. We ought to be unequivocally clear that we serve all of the citizens in this country.
When I entered the Army in 1974, the world’s population was 4 billion. Today it’s more than 8 billion. It will continue to grow, and with growth will come greater complexity and more risk. In my judgment it’s inconceivable that any single country could be capable of solving all of its problems alone. We will always need friends, allies, and partners who share our values. We should embrace our allies, learn from them, and train with them so that we are prepared and interoperable when our security is threatened.
Civilian and military leaders, active and retired, should keep the military out of politics. George Washington established this standard in the very beginning. Over our first 250 years, we have sometimes lived up to his example well and sometimes fallen short. But as the world’s exemplar of democracy, the U.S. military needs to be non-partisan in both appearance and nature. As elections and political issues come and go, there should never be any doubt that the military is loyal to the country, its laws, and to the civilian leaders elected to lead us regardless of party or politics. In my experience, all of our elected officials, from both sides of the aisle, support our military. They may not agree how to use it, but they respect the capabilities it provides and the people who serve. Nothing would be more harmful to the culture of our military and to the relationship we enjoy with the American people than the implication that we are merely one more politicized actor in the partisan struggle.
To deal with the future as it appears to be evolving, our Army will need leaders who are deeply and persistently committed to expanding their thinking as they progress through their careers, leaders who are especially skillful at communicating their ideas and insights, leaders who in an AI-enabled decision making environment know how to ask the right questions, leaders who in that same machine-enabled environment can be a bit skeptical without becoming cynical, leaders who are inclusive because they recognize that they absolutely need the perspectives of others. Today we encourage leaders to “centralize the what” but “decentralize the how” in accomplishing their missions. Tomorrow that will not just be a better approach to leadership; it will be the only effective approach to leadership.
The distinction matters. Even today, real leadership relies more on influence than on authority. Real power is based on capability of course but also on reputation. Real leaders demonstrate expertise and a moral compass in using it. Deciding how to do something can matter as much as deciding what to do.
Things that reduce our influence, taint our reputation, and tarnish our character diminish us.
On this 250th birthday of the U.S. Army, I am proud not only of what we have accomplished throughout our history but also proud of how we have accomplished it. But my pride is not oblivious to the reality that we’ve made mistakes. It’s foolish and dangerous to think otherwise.
That’s why I have always believed that a measure of humility should be prominent in the celebration of our accomplishments: humility at the incredible responsibility we bear, at the remarkable sacrifices we’ve made, and at what lies ahead.
Happy birthday, Army. Thank you to those men and women who throughout our history have worn our uniform, trained, served, fought, and sacrificed to ensure we live up to our motto: “This We’ll Defend.”
Gen. (ret.) Martin E. Dempsey was the 37th chief of staff of the U.S. Army and the 18th chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Image: U.S. Army photo by Eric Tagayuna
Jesus Christ is King
