[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 154 (Friday, September 29, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14641-S14643]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Gen. John M. 
Shalikashvili for reappointment as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff and reappointment to the grade of general.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination?
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering the 
nomination of Gen. John M. Shalikashvili for reappointment as Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and for reappointment to the grade of 
general.
  We all know General Shali very well. His record is exemplary. General 
Shali was only a young lad when he came to this country with his family 
as they immigrated from Poland. He began to excel almost immediately.
  General Shali graduated from Bradley University receiving a degree in 
mechanical engineering. Later he received a Master's degree in 
international relations from George Washington University.
  General Shali entered the Army as an enlisted man in August 1958. 
Later, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the field 
artillery. He served in the United States, Germany, and Vietnam rising 
to the rank of general, the highest rank attainable. He commanded a 
division. He was the deputy commander-in-chief of the U.S. Army in 
Europe. He also commanded Operation Provide Comfort, feeding and 
preserving the freedom of the Kurds in northern Iraq.
  Not only did General Shali rise from the lowest enlisted rank to the 
highest grade possible, he was selected to succeed Gen. Colin Powell as 
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As such, he became the 
principal advisor to the President on military matters. To say that 
this is a significant achievement is an understatement. His 
accomplishments represent what is right and good about America. General 
Shali is an outstanding soldier and an outstanding American. Through 
hard work, dedication and professionalism, he became the most important 
military officer in our Armed Forces.
  Last week, the Armed Services Committee held a confirmation hearing 
at which General Shali testified. He responded fully and completely to 
every question, many of which focused on current and potential 
operations in Bosnia. Following the hearing, the committee unanimously 
voted to favorably report General Shali's nomination to the Senate.
  I point out to my colleagues that General Shali's current appointment 
expires at the end of September. In order to ensure there is no gap in 
his appointment, the Senate will have to act on this nomination before 
the end of the month.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to confirm General Shali's nomination.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Faircloth). The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise not to object. I simply wish to make 
a brief statement on this nomination.
  I believe that the vast majority of the Members of the Senate are 
committed to confirming the very distinguished general. I, however, 
have some concerns. Let me be specific.
  I believe that part of the reason for America's military failures--
and they have been few--has been a failure of leadership, not a failure 
of the American will, the American spirit, or the American fighting men 
and women.
  This country has an extraordinary record in combat, and it has an 
extraordinary record in peace. But when you look at our failures--and 
there have been few--you are struck by the fact that we have had a 
failure of leadership at times. In Lebanon, President Reagan committed 
United States troops and literally left the guards at the gate without 
bullets for their guns. The decision was made because of diplomatic 
concerns, but resulted in the loss of hundreds of American lives, of 
Marines who never had a chance to defend themselves.
  That was a failure of leadership, Mr. President. It was not a failure 
of the men and women who sacrificed their lives. It was a failure of 
leadership to commit to their troops and ensure that they were never 
put in harm's way without a way to defend themselves.
  This country's failure in Vietnam was a failure of leadership. 
American troops were committed to combat. They were asked to risk their 
lives. They were asked to fly missions, they were asked to commit their 
very lives to that combat. But our leadership was not committed to 
them. This country followed a course of putting men and women in harm's 
way, of risking their lives, but it was not important enough for our 
leadership to stand behind them and stand with them.
  I believe with all of my heart that it is a mistake to use military 
force other than to fight and to win a war. It is a mistake to use them 
as social workers. It is a mistake to use them as policemen. It is a 
mistake to have them remove garbage in Haiti. It is a mistake for them 
to serve as a local police force. Our men and women in the Armed Forces 
are willing to risk their lives for us, and they deserve to have this 
United States stand behind them when they are committed to combat.
  Mr. President, in 1993, October 5th to be exact, the administration 
came forward and talked about their commitment of United States fighter 
aircraft to maintain a no-fly zone over Bosnia. I specifically 
questioned those testifying along this line: Was the administration 
willing to stand behind the pilots that they sent into harm's way over 
Bosnia? I asked for specific assurances that they would not do what 
they did in Vietnam.
  For those who may not recall our actions in Vietnam, the United 
States sent planes into hazardous areas where we knew there were 
ground-to-air missiles. We sent them on restricted courses, without the 
ability to defend themselves and without the necessary rules of 
engagement that would have allowed our pilots to have a fighting chance 
to defend themselves. We even sent them at times into situations 
without any ability to retrieve them if they were shot down.
  During the October 5 hearing, I was assured specifically that the 
mistakes of Vietnam were not to be repeated. I specifically questioned 
several times whether U.S. planes that were attacked would be permitted 
to retaliate and whether the retaliation would not be limited only to 
the SAM that fired at them. In Vietnam, the United States response to 
enemy fire was limited in 

[[Page S 14642]]
such a way that United States pilots who had been fired upon could not 
attack the supplies and the ammo depots. I was assured that in Bosnia 
there would be a full and effective retaliation if our men and women 
who fly the planes and the aircraft of the United States were fired 
upon.
  Specifically, Mr. President, this was the answer of the Assistant 
Secretary of State for European Affairs, and I quote from the committee 
record:

       They would have the necessary rules of engagement to permit 
     them to defend themselves if attacked and to carry out the 
     engagement which may require coercion. . ..

  Now, some Members may have forgotten, but I do not think the family 
of our pilot has forgotten. On June 2, 1995, Captain Scott O'Grady, a 
young American pilot, was shot down over Bosnia by a ground-to-air 
missile, a Serb SA6. After that shootdown, several things became clear.
  First, that the Bosnian Serbs had made it clear in advance that they 
intended to go after our planes. This was not a secret. They had said 
it publicly, clearly and precisely.
  Second, that the Bosnian Serbs had the capability, and we knew it; 
that they had ground-to-air missiles, and we knew it.
  Third, that their missile radar had painted our aircraft in that same 
area before O'Grady's plane was shot down.
  Fourth, the plane was shot down, and
  Fifth, we did nothing.
  Now, this violates the very clear commitment that this administration 
gave us. They told the Foreign Relations Committee that if they sent 
our troops, our planes and our pilots into harm's way and they were 
fired upon, we would defend them. We were told specifically that United 
States rules of engagement would not tie their hands as we did in 
Vietnam, and that the United States would retaliate.
  The truth is, we did tie their hands exactly as we did in Vietnam, 
and we did not retaliate.
  That is wrong. If we want to risk young men and women's lives in 
combat, if we want to do that, we ought to be willing to stand behind 
them. If the United States is not willing to stand behind our fighting 
men and women, do not send them to war.
  If it is important enough to make the tough decision to send American 
troops into harm's way--if we must do it--then do it. But if it must be 
done, our leaders cannot tie the hands of our fighting men and women 
and we cannot desert them. We must not desert them when they are in 
combat.
  Now, that is what the United States did with this young Captain 
O'Grady. Thank God he came back alive. But, Mr. President, we did not 
meet our commitment to him. We have not met our commitment to other men 
and women put into harm's way.
  For those of you who think this is impossible, take a look at what 
happened in Somalia. I do not need to remind you of that painful 
incident. It happened under a previous Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff. The tendency exists to put combat troops into situations in 
which they are not permitted to defend themselves and do not have 
adequate backup.
  For those of you who think these mishaps are over, take a look at 
what Haiti was, because the United States sent U.S. troops to collect 
garbage and to act as a local police force. I think that was a mistake.
  Mr. President, I rise because I believe the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff has a responsibility that is fundamentally different 
from that of other soldiers. The responsibility of soldiers in this 
Nation is to follow orders. We believe in civilian control of the 
military, and we ought to, and we ought to insist on it. But the 
responsibility of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff goes 
further than just following orders. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff has to be the one who stands up when the political leadership 
misunderstands the role of the military in this country.
  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I believe, is going to be 
the one who says, ``Mr. President, do not use our troops to collect 
garbage.'' ``Mr. President, do not send our troops and our planes into 
combat situations without protection.'' ``Mr. President, if our planes 
are shot down, we must retaliate.''
  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has a responsibility to 
rise above politics, to not simply follow orders. Most importantly of 
all, Mr. President, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has a 
responsibility to every young man and every young woman in this country 
who puts on a uniform. He has a responsibility to stand up for them, to 
speak up for them, to be concerned about their welfare.
  Mr. President, the Chairman has a responsibility to speak out if this 
Nation ever attempts to put our combat troops in harm's way without 
standing behind them, without giving them the ability to defend 
themselves.
  Mr. President, I come to this nomination full of admiration for 
General Shalikashvili on a personal basis, with great respect for his 
intellect, with deep respect for his military service and for his 
commitment to this country. But, Mr. President, I do not feel that 
General Shalikashvili has stood up for the men and women who wear the 
uniform of the United States. General Shalikashvili has tended to 
follow orders from his superiors when he had a responsibility to speak 
out for conditions that will protect American fighting men and women.
  General Shalikashvili should have insisted that if we send U.S. 
planes to Bosnia into harm's way, the pilots have the right to defend 
themselves fully. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has a 
special responsibility to America's fighting men and women. He must 
ensure that every possible measure has been undertaken to ensure their 
safety. That includes making clear to our country's leaders the actions 
necessary for their protection. He has not fulfilled that part of his 
job. I wish to be recorded as opposing the confirmation.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination 
of Gen. John S. Shalikashvili for a second 2-year term as the Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  I have worked closely with General Shalikashvili or General Shali, as 
he is usually referred to, over the years. This has been particularly 
true since August 1989 when then Lieutenant General Shali was the 
deputy commander-in-chief of the U.S. Army Europe and Seventh Army. 
During that assignment, General Shali commanded the Combined Task Force 
Provide Comfort that provided humanitarian assistance to the Kurdish 
refugees in Northern Iraq. That very difficult operation, which 
involved providing assistance to between 500 and 700,000 Iraqi Kurds 
who had taken to the mountains and coaxing them back down to resettle 
their towns and villages, saved tens of thousands of lives.
  From August 1991 to June 1992, then Lieutenant General Shali served 
as the Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In that 
position, General Shali represented the then Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, General Powell, in interagency fora. Based upon his 
performance in those demanding assignments, General Shali was promoted 
to four-star general in June 1992 and was assigned as the Supreme 
Allied Commander, Europe, the senior military officer of NATO, and 
Commander-in-Chief, United States European Command. General Shali has 
served as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff since October 1993.
  General Shali has testified numerous times before the Armed Services 
Committee since his advancement to four-star rank. He also testified 
before the Armed Services Committee in September 1993 in connection 
with his initial nomination to be the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff and testified again before the Committee last week in connection 
with his nomination for a second 2-year term. The Committee voted 
unanimously to favorably report his nomination to the Senate.
  I think that it is important to review the role of the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I find that many people believe that the 
Chairman has far more authority than he does. Under the law, the JCS 
Chairman is the principal military adviser to the President, the 
National Security Council and the Secretary of Defense. The chain of 
command runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense and from 
the Secretary of Defense to the commanders of the combatant commands. 
Communications between the President and the Secretary of Defense and 
the combatant commanders are transmitted through the JCS Chairman. The 
Secretary of Defense has assigned to the 

[[Page S 14643]]
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs the responsibility for overseeing the 
activities of the combatant commanders but that assignment does not 
confer any command authority on the Chairman. The Chairman outranks all 
other officers of the armed services but he does not exercise military 
command over the Joint Chiefs of Staff or any of the armed forces.
  In other words, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the 
senior member of our armed forces and the principal military adviser to 
our civilian leaders but he does not exercise command over any element 
of the armed forces and is not in the chain of command for our armed 
forces.
  General Shali is responsible for giving the best military advice that 
he can. There is no guarantee, however, that his military advice will 
carry the day on any issue. He has agreed if asked, to give the 
Congress his personal views on any issue even if those views differ 
from the Administration. I have no doubt that he has fulfilled that 
agreement. As a matter of fact, General Shali's testimony before the 
Armed Services Committee last week was germaane to both of these 
points. With respect to providing military advice he testified as 
follows:

       I am very much convinced that . . . the Secretary of 
     Defense and the President, and for that matter, the National 
     Security Council, not only welcome military advice, seek it, 
     give me every opportunity to voice my views. Again I say that 
     does not mean that my views are always the ones that prevail, 
     but I can think of only a few where they have not prevailed 
     and not in cases where I felt that whatever was decided was 
     such that I needed to walk away from it because I could not 
     in clear conscience support that.

  With respect to a decision that was contrary to his advice, General 
Shali testified as follows with respect to the complicated issue of 
demarcation between theater and national missile defense:

       . . . the Chiefs met on a number of occasions during this 
     period when demarcation and particularly specific limits on 
     interceptors were discussed, and we were always of the view, 
     all of us, that we should not place any limits on them. When 
     it came to the decision, everyone in the administration was 
     aware that my view and the view of the Joint Chiefs was that 
     we should not put any limits on it. The debate and the 
     decision went the other way. At the earliest possible 
     opportunity, I raised the issue that we need to reopen that 
     point and that we need to pursue without limits on 
     interceptors. I believe that is essentially where we are 
     today. So, I feel good that my view in the long term has 
     prevailed.

  If the opposition is because of disagreement with the 
administration's Bosnia policies or past Bosnia policies, then the 
opposition is misplaced because General Shali is an adviser not a 
decisionmaker.
  General Shali has my unqualified and strong support for confirmation 
for a second 2-year term as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination 
of Gen. John Shalikashvili to continue as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff.
  He has the total well-being of the men and women in our armed forces 
foremost in his mind as he performs his duties. He has been a firm and 
steady voice for assuring that when our military is used, it be only 
with clear purpose and with the full backing of our civilian 
leadership. He has focused great resources on readiness, training, and 
morale.
  For these reasons, he has broad and deep support within the services, 
and enjoys the confidence of the military, from generals to privates. 
General Shali is truly a soldier's soldier.
  The General has rendered outstanding service to the Nation throughout 
his career, and for the last 2 years as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. 
The Armed Services Committee unanimously approved General Shali's 
nomination, and we have greatly benefited from his expertise, his 
responsiveness to our inquiries and his clarity and directness. We 
always get a straight answer to our questions, and get it promptly.
  Mr. President, I urge the Senate to approve this nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nomination is 
confirmed.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to reconsider the vote whereby General 
Shalikashvili was confirmed.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
President be immediately notified of this confirmation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Just a procedural question, Mr. President.
  Has this nomination passed the Senate by voice vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has passed.
  Mr. NUNN. Has there been a motion to reconsider and a motion to lay 
on the table?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There has been a motion to reconsider and to 
lay on the table.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I would like to thank the distinguished 
Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, for allowing us to proceed with 
this nomination ahead of his amendment. He is a gentleman and a 
scholar.

                          ____________________