[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 45 (Thursday, April 21, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  THE 187TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE WASHINGTON LIGHT INFANTRY BATTALION OF 
                             CHARLESTON, SC

                        HON. ARTHUR RAVENEL, JR.

                           of south carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 21, 1994

  Mr. RAVENEL. Mr. Speaker, the following speech was delivered by my 
constituent, Maj. Gen. Roy E. Moss, U.S. Marine Corps [retired], before 
the Washington Light Infantry Battalion of Charleston, SC, on the 
occasion of their 187th anniversary. I believe that all Americans will 
appreciate and benefit from its reading.
  The speech follows:

     Speech by Major General Roy E. Moss, USMC [Ret.] at the 187th 
    Anniversary of the Washington Light Infantry, Charleston, South 
                      Carolina, February 22, 1994

       Thank you Colonel Seigling for that nice introduction.
       General Westmoreland, General Cook, Congressman Ravenel and 
     the distinguished general officers and other friends here at 
     the head table, and to all of the many members, friends and 
     supporters of the Washington Light Infantry here tonight, let 
     me say how pleased I am to be here with you this evening.
       Colonel Likes, let me congratulate you and your 
     organization on this--its 187th anniversary. I have read the 
     history of your organization and it is replete with 
     distinguished service to country, State and community. I am 
     certain the next 187 years for the Washington Light Infantry 
     will be equally distinguished.
       The other evening, my wife and I were talking about America 
     and especially how blessed we were as a nation to have had 
     men like Washington and Lincoln at their moments in history. 
     George Washington, for whom this organization is named, was 
     certainly a man of destiny . . . first leading the fledgling 
     armies that won our independence and later becoming a 
     magnificent statesman and our first president. He also had a 
     major voice in the development of our remarkable Constitution 
     in 1787. What a magnificent legacy he left us!
       Then, my wife and I began wondering what it would be like 
     to bring Washington and Lincoln back to life for a short time 
     to see this land they had such force in shaping. Imagine with 
     me for a moment, the brief reincarnation of George Washington 
     so that he might see and learn about the America of 1994. I'm 
     certain he would be awestruck with our modern transportation 
     systems, communications networks, the results of the 
     expansion westward and the great cities in this land of ours. 
     However, since Washington was a man of the world, I am 
     confident he might ask about our place in the world today. We 
     can recall that he had concerns for our national security 
     during his lifetime and I am certain he would want to know 
     today if the freedoms he and his men fought so valiantly for 
     were still intact. And . . . I think if we explained the 
     history of America over the last 100 years to him and asked 
     him about the challenges of today . . . he would agree that 
     we are indeed at one of the great intersections of history.
       For today is a time when the old world with its special 
     problems . . . is giving way to a new world . . . a world 
     with its own set of unique challenges. The world that is 
     ending is the world shaped by World Wars I and II . . . and 
     by the long cold war that followed.
       After the Second World War . . . we were forced to wage a 
     long war of ideas against a deadly, implacable foe * * * but 
     it was a war of ideas that also required action. In Korea 
     and Vietnam we put steel and blood behind our words as 
     part of the grand strategy of containment. We've won this 
     long war. Along the way there were defeats and partial 
     victories but in the final analysis our triumph has been 
     complete. The professional soldiers * * * sailors * * 
     airmen and marines along with their counterpart citizen 
     soldiers * * * who fought in the cold and snow of Korea 
     and the heat and humidity of Vietnam * * * and in a dozen 
     other places from Lebanon to the Dominican Republic * * * 
     made our victory possible.
       Unfortunately, the aftermath of victory isn't always neat, 
     clean or even final. Uncertainty is the defining 
     characteristic of the new world we're entering. The residue 
     of the cold war doesn't present a set of problems that can be 
     solved by a second Congress of Vienna. Even Metternich would 
     be challenged by the global complexities of the current 
     international security situation.
       Bearing this in mind, I'd like to talk about the strategic 
     landscape of the world that confronts us at the end of the 
     twentieth century * * * the world we're going to have to deal 
     with in the decades ahead. We've set aside our grand strategy 
     of containment * * * it worked * * * but it's over now. The 
     bipolar world * * * that of we and the Soviet Union * * * 
     that dominated all of our defense planning is obsolete. And 
     it became obsolete virtually overnight. The stunning visual 
     image of the Berlin Wall coming down in November 1989 will 
     forever be the symbol of three key events that outline this 
     hinge of history:
       The end of the Warsaw Pact as a coherent alliance;
       The disintegration of the former Soviet Union; and
       The birth of democracy in Eastern Europe.
       But the post-containment world is more confused * * * and 
     at least as violent * * * as the old bipolar one. This world 
     will continue to require the United States * * * the only 
     military and economic superpower left standing * * * to be an 
     active player on the international scene. We may not be 
     Bismarck's ``honest broker'' in all cases, but we will have 
     to remain engaged. Regional threats have now replaced the 
     ``evil empire''. But as we saw in Kuwait, even regional 
     threats can be very dangerous to world stability.
       While we certainly dominate the global balance of power, 
     that superiority becomes less obvious and more difficult to 
     apply within a regional environment. And, frankly, I believe 
     our strategy and outlook for the future is going to be 
     regional in nature. There are some dangerous bullies out 
     there. As Colonel Harry Summers, a noted army historian has 
     said, ``There are tigers out there'' * * * and some are 
     stalking us. This confused, violent picture is the backdrop 
     against which our national defense must be planned.
       Quite reasonably, many Americans are demanding more butter 
     and fewer guns. As a result, we're in a period of steep 
     decline of defense spending. This decline is probably steeper 
     than you might realize. Let me share a couple of details with 
     you: the 1994 Defense budget represents the ninth year in a 
     row that DOD budgetary authority has declined when measured 
     in constant dollars. The spending level for defense as a 
     percentage of the GNP is the smallest since 1948. The 
     procurement account to replace equipment and take advantage 
     of new technology alone has declined 64% over the same nine 
     year period. The military services are on track to have . . . 
     by 1997. . . the fewest number of men and women in uniform in 
     57 years . . . or since 1940.
       While some of this drawdown is reasonable to undertake, in 
     our quest for butter, we must keep some guns. And, like 
     college tuition, in this technological age, the price of guns 
     continually rises. I certainly don't believe we can solve all 
     of the ills of society with the defense budget . . . but we 
     can certainly cripple our own defense through poor overseas 
     military installations as part of this draw down. There is 
     also the difficult business of closing 79 bases and 
     installations here in the United States including our own 
     naval base right here in Charlestown. That's a massive 
     realignment of resources.
       I'd like to make a point that we need to keep in mind as we 
     think about how to use the military element of our national 
     power. We can't always choose when and where we'll have to 
     fight. All states don't behave rationally. For example . . . 
     Japan in 1941 . . . North Korea in 1950 . . . and Iraq in 
     1990 weren't operating within the same rational calculus that 
     shapes our own foreign policy. Unfortunately, Americans 
     sometimes tend to see others through the mirror of our own 
     motivations and likely actions. This has hurt us more than 
     once in the past . . . as we found that our military force 
     was unequal to our diplomatic intent. A failure to deter . . 
     . a failure to field and maintain credible Armed Forces . . . 
     often leads to war . . . and sometimes not at a time and 
     place of our choosing. So, how we defend our Nation in this 
     strange new world is both straightforward . . . yet 
     difficult. We must be ready . . . both for the rational and 
     the obvious . . . and also for the irrational and the 
     unexpected.
       Our ability to deter, and defend if need be, will always 
     remain linked to the quality of our Armed Forces. We don't 
     know were, we can't predict accurately when, but on one thing 
     I'll give a stiff wager: the United States will again commit 
     its young sons and daughters to conflict; and as much as we 
     might hope that it will be the sterile, precise, video-game, 
     hi-tech, low or no-casualty conflict some strategists would 
     like, it will, unfortunately, involve infantry, and mud and 
     rifles . . . and body bags.
       A quick look at where this could happen:
       First, there is the running sore that is Bosnia. In the 
     Balkans, the armed ethnic factions of the former Yugoslavia 
     ravage the economic life of the affected region, to say 
     little of the senseless loss of innocents caught in the 
     struggle. It tears the heart to witness . . . through the 
     immediacy of television . . . the maimed children and the 
     cruel obstruction of humanitarian relief.
       Despite our very real concern for this tragic situation, 
     the question of United States intervention must turn on how 
     many dead young Americans we are willing to see come home, 
     and, how much national treasure we are willing to expend.
       While America is doing a number of things now to support 
     the United Nation's effort, we are all concerned about an 
     expanded role for our forces without a substantive, clear, 
     political agreement, ratified by all of the parties. Yes . . 
     . the situation there is a tragedy . . . but the painful fact 
     is that we can't afford to become militarily involved in 
     every tragedy across the globe that screams for help. Before 
     committing our military forces, we must apply a 
     discriminating test that balances the probable risk . . . 
     measured in American blood and treasure . . . against the 
     probable gain . . . measured in national, international and 
     regional interests.
       In Somalia, the 1992-1993 operation ``restore hope'', 
     categorized as a ``humanitarian intervention'' . . . was to 
     save as many dying Somali lives as possible. The irony of 
     Somalia for Americans is that our troops were fighting . . . 
     even killing . . . to feed people and to save lives. To date, 
     our share of the bill for Somalia is estimated to be about 
     $10 billion . . . and, it has been estimated we saved one 
     million human lives. We should be proud of this. But in a 
     time of significant fiscal contraction, where we choose to 
     apply force must . . . as in the case of Bosnia . . . involve 
     a careful risk-gain balancing act.
       Last, let me turn closer to home. Many of you will remember 
     the scenes of the USS Harlan County, an amphibious ship, 
     being turned away from Port au Prince, Haiti. In a nutshell, 
     this summarizes many of the problems we are going to face in 
     this new world. Under what circumstances are we going to 
     intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation? 
     America no longer practices gunboat diplomacy.
       These three situations . . . Bosnia, Somalia and Haiti . . 
     . like all politico-military crises . . . have a common 
     thread: their ultimate solution must be political and 
     economic, not military. Geography, the concerns of our own 
     citizens, and the international diplomatic situation all 
     militate against the unrestrained use of force . . . force 
     that in all of these situations might well have been 
     counterproductive. Although we possess . . . in relative 
     terms . . . virtually unlimited force, we don't have the 
     authority, and in many cases the will, to wield it 
     unrestrained.
       We stand on the verge of a new world . . . a world we won 
     by our long vigil of containment, but a world full of new 
     dangers and responsibilities. I see this new era as a time 
     when our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are going to 
     be used more and more frequently, for diverse and challenging 
     tasks . . . from major regional contingencies . . . to 
     peacekeeping . . . to deterrence, and everything in between.
       As long as we recognize that the military element of power 
     must be truly credible and up to the tasks we may require it 
     to undertake, the security of our Nation should continue in 
     good order. To maintain credible Armed Forces will require a 
     continuing willingness by the American people to bear the 
     burden of defense . . . and I believe they are willing to do 
     this especially when they understand the issues and problems 
     confronting us, and the dangers of a short-sighted downsizing 
     of our defense capabilities. As Secretary of the Navy John 
     Dalton has said, we must rightsize . . . not just downsize.
       The price of freedom in an unfriendly world has always been 
     steep. George Washington knew this very well. In my mind's 
     eye, I can see quiet, green American military cemeteries on 
     foreign shores. . . . From the Meuse-Argonne to Omaha Beach, 
     to the Philippines. . . . All testimony to the courage of 
     American fighting men and women who have gone forth when 
     needed. Through their courage we now have a new world for a 
     new generation, and that's a very fine legacy for us all.
       As we look forward to this new world, we mustn't forget the 
     underlying lesson that America's wars in this century have 
     taught us . . . a lesson purchased in blood . . . and that is 
     this: the forces that defend our Nation must have the 
     capabilities to meet not only the crises we can anticipate 
     and prepare for . . . but also the unforeseeable and 
     uncomfortable hot spots . . . the threats to freedom that are 
     certain to arise in this new and uncertain world. To do this 
     will require some difficult trade-offs for American citizens. 
     But as we continue our very good start into this post-cold 
     war world, these are lessons that are too bloody to be 
     forgotten and too dear to be re-learned.
       I'm certain if General Washington were here tonight, he 
     would be proud of what our Nation has accomplished . . . . 
     And I know he would share our concern for the future. The 
     price of freedom . . . in his time and ours . . . has never 
     been something we can simply take for granted.
       Thank you very much and may God continue to bless this very 
     great land of ours.

                          ____________________