ADM. MICHAEL MULLEN: Can you actually see me all the way in the back? (Laughter, cheers, applause.) Got about 45 minutes. I’ve got a few thoughts I’d like to get out and then, really, where at least I benefit and I hope you benefit is in the Q&A. I know the secretary was just here, took a few and certainly I look forward to that. So, first of all, my main message is really one of the gratitude for everything that you do and have done and also will need to do in the future.
This has been wonderful, over the last couple of years, for me – a wonderful learning experience. One of the great joys of being in the military is I’ve been able to grow in every job and one of the greatest growth sectors for me, if you will, as chairman has been the interaction I’ve had with the guard and reserve. And it hasn’t, actually, just been about interaction with the TAGs because I’ve seen an awful lot of troops in theater, actually, here in our country, but certainly in theater who – I used to say and, actually, I’m reminded as I stand here that unless somebody told me they were in the guard or the reserve or active, I couldn’t tell because in the fight, everybody is the same: side by side, shoulder to shoulder and making such a difference.
And the transition that has occurred over the last decade in the guard and reserve, in particular, but in the guard today has just been absolutely spectacular. And I am grateful for that, grateful for your sacrifice, grateful for the time and dedication that you have spent, you spend, and your families spend in supporting our country. And I just – words won’t capture that. I just can’t say enough about how spectacular it’s been.
And I would ask, and this is usually a failed strategy, I would ask you to take that back to your homes. Take it back to your families. Relay that to your families. When I say it’s failed, it’s historically – no matter what group, small or large, I ask would you please take this information home, often times it doesn’t get there.
So I say it with emphasis: Please do that because you couldn’t be here without phenomenal support from your families. And then I extend that to the incredible support we’ve had from employers and communities, cities and states to support these missions. So again, thanks for making such a difference at a really critical time in our country’s history and, quite frankly, I think, in the world’s history. We could not have done it without you. As I look back and if I put myself in a position of looking forward from the year 2000 and said, for the next nine years, here’s what I’m going to do, it would seem as if we would be unable to do it.
And while it has not been easy, it has, in great part, been because of you and hundreds of thousands of others who have dedicated themselves that we have done this and we’ve done it on a path to success in Iraq when, not very long ago, there were very few that thought that was possible. And we did it by, with and through you. And clearly, we have an enormous – we’ve got enormous pressure on our forces and our families and I understand that. But we’ve done it in a way that’s built resilience, built capability for the future and looked to the future and the challenges as we shift the heavy burden from Iraq to Afghanistan. And I have great confidence that we can continue to succeed. So thank you in so many ways.
Secondly, and this is a leadership conference and I’ll come to leadership, specifically, in a second, but it’s also a time of great change. And if, again, I look over the last several years – look what has changed. And I know the secretary – I’ll just use one specific example. In the continuous mobilization training – and I know that that is something we’ve learned on the way. And that speaks to an ability for everybody to predict as much as possible, to have a plan – whether it’s an employer, an individual, a family, a service, a commander – so we can look out with some more predictability.
And we’ve learned that. And I applaud the decision that’s been made there and that’s been very actively pursued by you. And I think it is the right answer. But as we look out to the future, what’s the next change tied to what we learned that we have to think about adapting? Now, I don’t know what that is. But I know one’s out there to, yet again, make us more efficient, better equipped, better trained and optimizes and more efficiently uses this incredible capability that resides in the guard.
So I’d ask you to think about that. That is one change which has occurred. There have been many changes which have occurred. And leading in a time of change – there is nothing more challenging. And I’d like to say we’re going to settle out. I don’t think we’re going to settle out. I think the challenges will continue, certainly, over the next couple of years. I continue to be concerned about the stress we have on our force, how we meet the commitments. I’m confident we can but as leaders we have to very much focus on that.
And as the tragic incident at Fort Hood showed a couple weeks ago, there are challenges we will continue to have to meet. And then, in that, in the, kind of, time of change – the challenges, the repeated deployments, the understanding that we want to get to more time at home and that on the guard side, we are settling out at about 1-in-3. And what’s the right answer against the policy that is 1-in-5. And I understand that. And do we need to go all the way to 1-in-5, quite frankly, as we look at not just what we have over the next couple of years because we do need to increase dwell time and continue to try to relieve some of that pressure.
And I think, by and large, we’ve concluded you need to be home twice as long as you are deployed, just in order to recover, to start to be able to train for other missions as well and to recharge for the next round. And that’s on the active side and certainly there is – it seems as though we are getting to some balance on the guard and reserve side that sends the same kind of message. So I do expect the challenges to continue and we will have to, in a time of change, look to that.
And I’ve asked the TAGs most recently but I’ll throw it out to you as well. I’ve started to ask the question is, well, what’s after Iraq and Afghanistan? What does the force look like? How do we make sure that the lessons that we’ve learned, the best combat force we have ever fielded, in my view, how do we make sure we retain the right individuals, how do we train them? How do we educate them? And what does it look like, and particularly on the guard side, what does it look like in the future?
And we are, because of the situation we’re in, we’ve taken our strategic reserve and put it into the fight. And I understand that. And, at least, in my head and this is a change brought about by, certainly, the critical circumstances but what does that mean in the long term because I believe we should have some level of strategic reserve. And yet, we have to have an operational response that keeps that strategic reserve healthy, tied to a training regimen and a preparation regimen that takes advantage of who we are and who we’ve become in these two wars and looks to a future that leverages that in preparation for what might be coming down the road.
And so what is next is a question. What are we preparing for in the future? And I don’t need everybody spending a lot of time on that. But I need people thinking about that right now because you can’t get ready overnight for the future. While we’re continuing to press very hard on the fights that we are in and we will do that. So that’s another huge change that is upon us. And that will have impacts on missions that we train for, how we distribute them.
The wonderful tension between – that you live with all the time – between the national set of missions and those that exist in your states or in your regions to – and then to, again, highlight just an unbelievable capability that has grown, that we’ve learned more about, highlighted – in great part – with Katrina in 2005 but many, many other responses since that time. And we will continue to move out into the future. Now, the only thing I would caution against is, as we look to a future that settles out, where the deployments aren’t as high as they are right now, the one thing I don’t want to do is I don’t want to reset to 2000.
Without leadership, we will snap back, in too many areas, to the way it was. So we have to look to the future and lead to the future, taking advantage of who we are, what we’ve become and what we think those challenges will be. And leading in a time of change – if you’ve spent any time in leadership – is the hardest kind of leadership there is. And it is leadership that has been very well executed here and will need to be in the future.
And then the last thing I want to just mention – I do want to talk a little bit about leadership. And the reason I emphasize that is because I think, certainly, what I’ve learned is those – when you can’t find any other solutions, there resides with the toughest problems that we have, there resides within the leadership realm an ability to make decisions, resolve the toughest problems and move ahead. And that would be my charge to you. I looked at Gen. McKinley’s comments that he spoke to you about this morning – just the array of issues.
And there are some very, very difficult ones that are being tackled and will need to be tackled. And there’s no better group to do it and no more capable characteristic, if you will, or no more capability that is better suited – no other capability better suited for solving those problems than leaders and the whole leadership spectrum.
So I ask you to really focus on that. Leaders need to take on the toughest problems. Delegate the ones to somebody junior to you that you don’t need to spend your time on. But I also believe that everybody’s a leader. Everybody in this room’s a leader. Whatever your pay grade, whatever your background, you are and taking advantage of that, making sure we’re taking care of each other and as I look to the future, I think the most important part of us, in terms of how viable we can be, how capable we can be, are our people, our people and our families.
We’ve changed how we engage families over the last 10 years and support them. We’ve changed how we’ve focused on that. We’ve put an enormous number of programs in place, support mechanisms in place. We’ve grown to understand it much more differently than we did in the past. And it is that family unit and that extended family unit that is part of our viable – that will make our future viable. Without it, I certainly would have concerns with respect to that. And that’s just one area that we need to lead in. Who are the spouses that are leaders? Who are the community leaders that can help us? And when I think of this – (applause.)
When I think of this, there’s no part of our military that is more suited to the fullness of contact with our country, the fullness of understanding of the challenges than you because you live in America and you live everywhere in America. And it is taking – and I believe it’s going to take America to make sure our men and women and their families are still embraced, that we’re able to handle the challenges of repeated deployments of wounded, of veterans who are getting out unprepared to get out – transitioning to a very, very difficult challenge.
And it is through us, and I know Secretary Shinseki is speaking as well. But this complete alignment between DOD and V.A. and communities throughout the country so that we can take care of and ensure we take advantage of these young people who sacrificed so much – wounded. Those who have fallen – their families – and that they can achieve their dream, which is, still one of great potential, great dreams and is described just like you and I would. I’d like to send my kids to school, have a family, have a job, live in a community that makes a – make a difference – and own a piece of the rock. And those dreams haven’t changed. It’s just, in many cases, the path has changed.
And you see more of that. You are located in a better position than anybody else. Leading – the only other aspect of leading that I would talk about right now, and I don’t know how much has been discussed – but we’re in the middle, as you know, we’re in the middle of a very, very difficult time economically in the country. And that has, actually – we will see that in our budgets. And that’s okay because I think we need to participate in that. And every dollar we have, we need to spend wisely. And leaders need to know, not just where their people are, leaders need to know where that money is going. And is the best investment that we can make?
And there is this challenge between resourcing everything for our people which we must do. And at the same time, recognize that is the largest chunk of our budget from any point of view, any aspect of any part of our military. So having that balance right is really critical as well. So how we lead there, how we make hard decisions – and there’s tough decisions that need to be made here in the recapitalization on the air side, for sure, the recapitalization and modernization of the Army – where we go with respect to the future combat system. And how much of that we integrate into the guard, which is clearly a critical question. And leaders have to tackle this and come up with solutions.
And I’ve asked TAGs to do just that. And we can’t move forward unless we’re moving forward together. So thanks for what you’re doing. We live in an enormously challenging time of change. And in that time there’s also great opportunities. And then, thirdly, continue to lead well. I just can’t say enough about how impressed I’ve been, how important it is to our nation and what a difference you and your families have made. Thank you. (Applause.) Happy to take questions.
Q: Sir, to your left, Gen. Dubie, TAG for Vermont. Thanks for your leadership. Thank you for being here. And thank you for your interaction with all the Adjutants General. My question is, from your seat and the vantage point is like none of us can imagine, but what are you worried about in the short term? And then, also, what are you worried about – the challenges you talked about – what are you worried about in the long term?
ADM. MULLEN: Probably, what keeps me up at night most of all is the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, specifically. And we’re, as you know, we’re certainly continued to have very in-depth deliberations and discussions about the way ahead here. And my expectation is that the president will make an announcement here in the near future – although I don’t know the specific date – at the conclusion of his process. Which I’m, actually – I mean, I’ve been very supportive of. We’ve all learned a lot – the depth and breadth of discussions, the challenges that we have.
And one of the things that comes out of this and it’s not new, but it’s gotten, I think, the right amount of emphasis is, this isn’t all just about the military. This isn’t all just about the number of troops because we can’t do it alone. We’ve got to have a security side of this, that’s the necessary side. But the sufficiency side is, we have to have a development plan. We have to have a governance plan that goes hand in glove as we move forward. So it’s been a very healthy debate, very healthy discussions, very open to different views and I think that’s been – that really has been, from a process stand point, very good.
But that, the challenges we have in that part of the region – and then the other one that keeps me awake, globally, is Iran. And, the Middle East broadly, but certainly Iran and where is all of that going and what the challenges that are associated with that as we move through this dialogue and engagement phase that is ongoing, which I’ve always thought was critical. It’s a country we haven’t had a dialogue with in over 30 years and we need to continue to do that, recognizing the vital interest that we have as a nation and that, I think, globally reside there in that part of the world. The friends that we have, the friends and allies that we have in the region – to continue to support them.
Obviously – and then part of that, clearly, is also to continue the responsible draw down in Iraq as we move through elections, et cetera. So those two would be the kind of very critical global issues that actually keep me up at night. And then the third one, really, is this whole issue of health of the force – the stress we’ve been under, the number of deployments, what we are continuing to learn about the impacts of that – clearly one of the things that – we have addressed it. We will need to continue to address it. The shortfalls in mental health professionals that we have in our services, as well as in our country – and how do we get that right? How do we tap capacity that’s out there in the communities, if you will, to assist us there as well?
But the focus on our families, the ability to relieve some of this pressure – and I see the dwell time in the Army, actually, slowly increasing. The Marine Corps is actually out in front of the Army with respect to that because they’ve gotten bigger. They’re deploying those battalions. And as they shift the weight of their effort from Iraq to Afghanistan, the commandant thinks that based on everything we understand that he’ll be able to get to 1-to-2 here in the next year to year and a half. The chief of the Army thinks it’s probably 2011 or 2012 before we would be there. And that’s based on some assumptions about deployments in the future.
But the totality of that – leadership engagement, with respect to that and then that would certainly extend to trying to become more predictable where you live, on the guard side, deployed units, et cetera. And how can we move further to the right with respect to 1-in-3 to 1-in-4, which is, kind of, where we are right now.
Q: Thank you, sir.
Q: Sir?
ADM. MULLEN: Yeah.
Q: My name is Maj. Gen. Randy Manner, I’m the deputy director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency in down at Fort Belvoir. I’m a member of the D.C. bar. Sir, the chairman mentioned that – sorry – the secretary of defense mentioned earlier this morning about having a pathway for senior involvement across our government for National Guard officers – it mentioned NORTHCOM, specifically. And with your support and members of Congress’ support, we greatly expanded the number of general officer positions that National Guard officers can compete for in the various COCOMs. My question, sir, is perhaps you could comment on what is the viability of developing such a program for our field-grade officers and our senior enlisted leaders who can greatly benefit from additional experience to support joint warfare?
ADM. MULLEN: I think we have to take – that’s one of the things I – we have to take advantage of the jointness of the wars that we are in, to get as many from every branch of every service, including the guard and reserve, into the joint fight, first of all. Secondly, and this is something Gen. McKinley and I talked about when he took over. And it is, how do we develop the right cadre of joint officers in the guard, in particular, in the guard to ensure that we have a flow plan, if you will, from, let’s say, field grade up through flag. And so I need TAGs – I mean, the essence of this – I need TAGs to move into joint jobs. And I’m not the TAGs detailer, as you might know. (Laughter.) There are some 55 individuals ahead of me in that business.
But fundamentally, that’s what’s got to happen. I mean, I think that’s the resource pool – it’s not the only resource pool. But with Gen. McKinley at the four star level, I’ve got to have – many of you guys know – I’ve got to have a flow plan that gets to that, one. Two is, I’d like some selectivity. Not, here is the only name to relieve Gen. McKinley. That’s not – that’s high risk, quite frankly.
So we need to populate more joint jobs, and I’m very supportive of that with the right officers. But, you know, the problem is, we just haven’t done that. We don’t have – you have very few TAGs specifically with significant joint experience where I could say – because at the two- and three-star level, these are big jobs, and the training – you don’t want a year’s worth of training before you really figure your job out.
So he and I are working our way through, sort of, that overall plan to do that, and I need help. And in that, actually – I mean, to feed that, you’ve got to have a group underneath that, and I think there are opportunities to do this, I’m just not sure we’ve tackled it aggressively enough to do what you – to talk – to get at what you’re talking about. But that’s very much where I’m headed.
I need a question from somebody other than a general officer. (Laughter.)
Q: Sir, Mike McCormick (ph), Oklahoma. This might be a little bit getting into the (weeds ?) for you, but if it is, feel free to just think about it. Current Air Force leadership seems to be committed to concurrent proportional deployment of upcoming systems, such as the F-35 and the KCX, whatever else comes out.
But there has been some past Air Force leadership in deploying recent things in both the CAF and the MAF, specifically, the F-22 and the C-17. There’s nowhere near concurrent proportion. Have you given any thought to using your title as the joint chief to maybe go back and regressing through some programmatic changes, redeploying some of those (tails ?). That would ease the Air Force’s manpower problems and allow the retirement of – (inaudible)? Thank you.
ADM. MULLEN: So if – I think if I understand the question, are – is the guard getting – are the guard getting any F-22s? (Laughter, applause.) And I say that – I have – in my own background, I have wonderful training because I used to handle all the money for the Navy, and the Navy pays for Marine Corps aviation. So we – I have a history of understanding how to try to resolve these kinds of challenges, and just a couple of thoughts.
So, yes, I’ve more than given it some thought; I’ve asked, in fact, both Gen. McKinley and Gen. Schwartz to come in and walk me through the integrated plan to look at the issues as they actually get down, specifically to who’s going to be flying what and why.
Now, my background – and this goes back to the Navy. The Navy had, a few years ago, a decade ago, roughly, the Navy had to make some enormously difficult decisions to recapitalize its aviation arm, period. And the only way you can do it and generate the kind of cash to do that internally – and you’re not going to – I also believe it wasn’t going to rain money from the outside, and I think that’s clearly more and more the case now – that we have to do this internally. And in order to do that, Gen. Schwartz has to decommission airplanes. There’s just no other way to generate that because that’s operating cost, it’s maintenance cost, it’s all the things that are associated with that. It’s older systems that are much more expensive to sustain, and the easy metric for me is, you know, just cost per flight hour. Generally speaking, clearly, the older that system is, the older the airplane is, the more it costs.
So that’s a piece of it, and I need to then have them actually kind of walk me through the plan. And I recognize that there aren’t going to be the same number of airplanes in both – in either – and it’s going to be awhile on the tanker side as well as on the pointy-nose side, and there are going to have to be some very difficult decisions, and I would like them not to be made by Congress. I would like us to make them, and – because I found out – I mean, and if we don’t, Congress will. That’s sort of how the system works.
And I understand that this reaches far and wide in the bases throughout the country. There are great equities associated with that as well, and I think what we need to have is an integrated plan that we all agree to make some hard decisions, and then move that across to the White House and to the Hill in terms of where we’re headed and why we’re headed that way.
So I was a little bit kidding about F-22s, but at the same time, I’m reasonably familiar with the challenges, and I think we have to come to grips with that. And we’ve got to do it right now because there are decisions which have already been made, some of them delayed, and we need a very coherent plan to move forward.
And there’s been – embedded in this is the people side, is – I’m a young tech sergeant or I’m a young officer, what does my future look like? And where we made some of those decisions in – I’m sorry, changed from manned, you know, a manned-squadron to unmanned, I think there have been some pretty – some visionary people looking at that in terms of our capability. And I don’t – I’m not saying that I see a future where it’s all unmanned. I don’t, I think there will be a balance there. But there are also constraints.
So that’s a long answer to your question, but so in fact, I’m looking at that very hard.
Q: Thank you, and just for your information, I was thinking more about C-17s than F-22s. (Laughter.)
ADM. MULLEN: Okay. We’ll make sure that gets on the record. (Laughter.)
MR. : Chairman, maybe one more question, one more.
ADM. MULLEN: Well, I’ve got 10 more minutes, so –
MR. : Whatever you want, sir. (Laughter.)
ADM. MULLEN: I get a lot of that, too. (Laughter.) Actually, it’s not true. (Laughter.)
Q: Admiral, Bob Van Milta (ph), command sergeant major, New York National Guard.
ADM. MULLEN: Hey, Sergeant Major.
Q: I know you’ve been a chairman for awhile now. Have you given any thought – further thought – to filling your senior enlisted leader position?
ADM. MULLEN: Conscious decision that I made, obviously early in my chairmanship, and – where – first of all, part of it is just personal style. Secondly, I’ve got four or five or six, depending on how many services (and bases ?) we talk about sergeant majors and master chiefs whose Title X responsibility aligns very much with the requirements at that level. And quite frankly, for what I saw at my level, taking you or taking an E-9 or an E-10, taking someone like that literally out of the fight where I think they could – he or she could be used better, I just, basically, I just couldn’t – I wasn’t going to go there.
So I have thought about it, and I certainly greatly value the input, and one of the things that I try to do, and it’s a challenge for any senior individual, you included, is what’s going on in the deck plates, what’s going on in the field? And I try to spend enough time out there, a lot of time out there, to understand that. And I’m comfortable with that right now, so in that regard, my expectation is I’ll stay right where I am.
Q: Thank you, sir.
ADM. MULLEN: Yeah.
MR. : Sir, to your right.
Q: Sir, I’m –
Q: Col. Harris (ph) from Ohio. Could you speak briefly, sir –
ADM. MULLEN: I’m trying to make my orders as short as possible – my answers as short as possible.
Q: Here, to your right, sir.
MR. : One o’clock.
ADM. MULLEN: Okay, go ahead. (Laughter.)
Q: Could you speak briefly – Col. Harris of Ohio – could you speak briefly about your thoughts on the Joint Force Headquarters in the States, specifically joint credit for certain assignments on the Joint Staff –
ADM. MULLEN: You said Joint Force –
Q: The Joint Force Headquarters in each of the 54 states and territories, specifically joint credit for assignment to certain positions and billets within that headquarters?
ADM. MULLEN: So the implication from the question is, we currently don’t do that?
Q: Sir, we’re working towards it, but that answer is correct.
ADM. MULLEN: Okay. One is, I need – give me your e-mail address and I’ll get you a more thorough answer, and I’ll also know where you live. (Laughter.) I’m kidding about that. My broad answer would be, I’m very open to identifying those billets and that time that are truly joint for which we should get credit. So one of the things that happened in the last two or three years, a couple of years ago now, is we set up this point system that has allowed officers to get joint credit, which is a career requirement for less than 24 months or 22 months or 36 months, whatever that – depending on what requirement we’re talking about at which level. And that has greatly, I think and very fairly, recognized those who were in the joint world for the time well-spent.
I honestly don’t know enough about the joint headquarters that you’re talking about to give you a good answer, and I will – but I will tell you, just because you put joint in front of something, that doesn’t automatically qualify. It needs to be no kidding, a joint experience, a joint billet where you’re doing joint work. And we’ve evolved over the last certainly 20-plus years to understand that a lot better. So what I’m – I’m saying the door is open with respect to that. I don’t control – we’ve got to work our way through the requirements list, and there are limits on that, but I am wide open to evaluating jobs, I mean billets, and assignments to meet that requirement.
First and foremost, there’s – the joint piece of this for me is, do I have an impact from this job which is clearly joint? And I am – and I thought I was pretty joint before I had this job. And there’s a lot about jointness I didn’t understand that I’ve learned over the last couple of years. And I’m a big proponent of it; I think we understand each other better, I think we can fight better, we can integrate better, we can educate better, and we will be a much stronger force long term. What billets actually meet that standard, if you will, is an open question, and I’ve certainly seen billets that were joint that didn’t make any sense and I’ve seen billets that weren’t joint, and you ask, why isn’t this a joint billet?
So I’m happy to address that, and whether or not we’re doing that at the headquarters you’re talking about would be the topic of my e-mail response back to you on the question, and it will help me get smarter about that particular area. So I appreciate your question.
Q: Sir, over on your other right. (Laughter.) Up front.
ADM. MULLEN: Where are you? Got it. (Laughter.) That would be your right.
Q: Sir, that’s correct. Sir, Col. Stephanie Dowing (ph), I’m from the Idaho National Guard, I’m currently stationed at the Pentagon in Air Force A-4 as an advisor. My question is, you’re standing up there as almost the very top of our chain of command, and I –
MR. : He is really funny.
Q: – wanted to know what words of advice you would give to a brand-new 2nd lieutenant, airmen or soldier who is out there in the National Guard today about their career in the National Guard.
ADM. MULLEN: Well, the first thing I’d tell them is thanks for joining. Then I’d tell them, don’t worry too much about looking up at me and how I got here because that’s a story that certainly I wasn’t thinking about when I was an ensign and none of my ensign or 2nd-lieutenant peers were, either.
I would advise them to, as one of my mentors told me many years ago, you know, grow where you’re planted. Don’t worry about that. Do the best you can, do your job, take care of your people, and in particular for a young officer, lean on – have high expectations for your senior enlisted to take care of you. Depend on that; that’s their job, and nobody will be better at taking care of you than your team and your senior enlisted. Your whole enlisted team, but certainly from a leadership standpoint, tap on those senior-enlisted individuals for all they know at that point.
I mean, I would be – I’d become the best I could at that point and worry less – not worry less about the long term, in terms of what’s next or what do I have to do over time. There comes a time and a place where you have to start asking those questions. And I continue to depend or develop mentors at that level, leaders that I respect for whatever reason, and not just one, and engage and ask questions and learn there as well. And I would hope that you would be bold enough at that level to tell leadership – to relay to leadership great ideas, innovation, do you really know what’s going on down here? Help leaders communicate with you.
I’ll make an assumption that that 2nd lieutenant is 20-something, and our ability to communicate with 20-somethings, certainly from my perspective, I’ve got 30-somethings and the message I’m getting is, they’ve got to figure out how to communicate now with 20-somethings. So that communication piece, which is a lesson I think for all of us, will continue to be incredibly challenging.
But I am, and my first reaction is, so thankful for them, for our young people who serve, and I’m reminded that it’s not just a 2nd lieutenant. I’m reminded that, and it might be not quite as true in the guard and in the reserve, but the average age in units throughout our land is in the early 20s. Been that way since we were founded as a country, is now. They are our future, and that all of us need to focus on them and make sure they have a future and that they also have a life that isn’t 100-percent 6,000 RPM all in the military, that there’s some balance there in their lives as well. But it’s an exciting, challenging time, and without them, we don’t have much of a future. (Applause.)
MR. : Chairman, you want to take one more?
ADM. MULLEN: I’ll take this as the possible last question. (Laughter.)
MR. : Okay.
Q: Sir, Lt. Col. Jake Culzer (ph), recruiting commander for the state of Minnesota. At the beginning of last year, the Army National Guard embarked on a significant campaign of growth, as far as end strength. Mid-year and with the new administration coming in about that same time, we pulled back as far as membership was concerned, and so we’re sitting at a little bit of a holding pattern as far as recruiting went. Our experience shows that it takes about 100 to 125 soldiers to deploy 100 when you account for medical readiness, training requirements and just personal hardship of our soldiers, even in the best units. What’s your vision for the size of the National Guard, both the short term and the long term?
ADM. MULLEN: I think we’ve got it – my sense is we’ve got it about right. What doesn’t exist in the guard that exists in all the services, and this is an ongoing discussion I’m having with the TAGs, is something I think the guards call TTHS. But essentially, it would be the 25 account. It wouldn’t be the 100 that would deploy – did you think of this question yourself or did somebody – (laughter).
Q: No, sir, this is my business, so this matters a lot.
ADM. MULLEN: So that’s roughly – I think we’re at 369, some number like that, is that right?
MR. : Three fifty-eight (358).
ADM. MULLEN: Sorry, 358. Sorry, 372.
MR. : I’ll take it. (Laughter.)
ADM. MULLEN: It’s 373 years, I’m sorry. (Laughter.) So that’s roughly about – the discussion we’re having is about 12,000 people, or so, and that’s another four or five, $600 million. I’m briefed it’s about 400; when I’m briefed like that, it’s usually a very optimistic number, so I’m assuming it’s more than that, to some degree. And then it’s a question of, can we manage ourselves in our current state without that kind of investment or should we in fact – should we in fact make that investment for another 10 or 12,000 people? And those are – actually, those are healthy discussions, some – this is something the guard has wanted for a long time, and actually on the Army side in particular, we’re working our way through that, I think in a positive way.
But I also go back to what I said before. It – you know, this is – it’s never free, and we’re always giving up something to get something. And leaders have to make those trades all the time and make those tough decisions. So and when I look at your 125 number, and that’s – that might be the number for the guard. I certainly accept that. We’re at a time right now with our active Army where in 2001, we’d build you a – we’d build the brigade to 105 percent to deploy at 100. Most recently, we are building to 107 percent to deploy at 90, which is this churn that this 22,000 end strength, temporary end strength – and I emphasize the word “temporary” – end strength is designed to fill so we can more easily and more deliberately fill up units, which we will continue to deploy.
But what also strikes me about the question is how much churn there is out there at a 1-and-3 rotation. And I know there is churn. I always – I talk with the TAGs about this, and we talk about the contiguous (mode ?) policy change which the secretary made, and that is really designed to reduce the churn. And I worry about Sgt. Jones (ph) sitting at the table in his civilian capacity with his family, looking at their future and having some predictability along with the employer, particularly – obviously on the guard side, which would be critical.
And to your – to the front end of your question, that we were working on a big increase in the guard, I don’t know who “we” was. It wasn’t me. (Laughter.) That doesn’t mean that there wasn’t some work going on, how can we move up – move this forward. But it’s an area of great concern, minimizing that churn, giving some predictability and continuing to be the great force that you are and that we will need for the future. So thank you – thanks to all of you. God bless. (Applause.)
MR. : I see Congressman Taylor’s headed back to the Hill. Thank you, sir, for attending.
ADM. MULLEN: Chairman Taylor, good to see you. Thanks for all your support.
MR. : Thank you, sir. Sir, I don’t get a chance with your tempo and mine to say thank you enough, but on behalf of the leadership that we try to represent here in town, if you’ll just give me a couple of minutes here. You kind of ran the clock on me, boss. (Laughter.)
MR. : Yes, sir. (Laughter.)
MR. : We – (laughter) – I first met Adm. Mullen in Europe. I was working for Gen. Johnson (ph) and he was responsible, kind of, for making the Navy Europe headquarters from London down to Leeds. And that was tough, but this man did it, and he did it compassionately and he did it well, and when he talked about being six sigma, that’s what we’ve got to do in the guard. We’ve got to focus on how to make the most of our people. That was number one.
Number two, we are 373 years old, but in a sense, with the questions about our structure, we’re about a year old, because we’ve got to grow the structure of the National Guard Bureau now commensurate with the needs of this great organization. You have been a leader that has challenged us to bring you that template, and I promise you, in year two, we will do that so that the Joint Force headquarters and the things that we need for the adjutant generals to continue their jobs at least gets presented to you in a way in which it may reasonably resonate with you.
Number three, Deborah Mullen is a champion of families and children, and I have witnessed it personally. Glenn Reith has witnessed it most recently with the Youth Challenge Event in New Jersey. Gen. Conway knows your support of Youth Challenge. We cannot thank you and Deborah enough for your leadership in the Department of Defense to support our total force. So I never get a chance to give my coin away, and boss, I’d be honored to give it to you, and Kelly’s (ph) got another small presentation for you.
MR. : Chairman, since our first muster in 1636, through Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, the National Guard has chosen significant events to commemorate. We thought this one was appropriate. It represents the 48th combat – Brigade Combat Team out of Georgia made up of six states. It represents your commitment to governance and building partnership capacity. Not only were these soldiers charged with helping the Iraqi Army, advising and training them, but also building partnership capacity. And this painting is the Mahmudiyah Marketplace, it’s entitled “Martyr’s Market”, and it represents the National Guard and the Iraqis hand in hand. We built the marketplace for that governance and building partnership capacity, so on behalf of all 2600 leaders of the National Guard, we can’t thank you enough for your staunch support. (Applause.)
ADM. MULLEN: This is particularly poignant for me because I know what a tough deployment this brigade had. And as I think about that – and Craig mentioned the family side of this – one of the things that I want to make sure doesn’t happen is that we somehow – for those losses, that we somehow detach ourselves from those tragedies. And in fact, we have to stay very much in touch with them, and I would – and I know you are doing that.
You also have, and the Youth Challenge is one, Yellow Ribbon is another; there are some gold-standard programs that you run. And we shouldn’t spend a lot of time figuring out if we should do them somewhere else. Until something else comes along, we ought to be adopting them active, reserve and guard, and the effects, because they are spectacular, and we still have those challenges.
And then the last thing I’d say is, you’re here for three days. You’re leaders, and I hope that at the end of three days, you go back charged up with a long list of things that you both learned and that you hold yourself accountable for executing to make it all better. So again, thanks, and God bless. (Applause.)