Many years ago, in a C-2A not an F-14, civilian capacity not military, we caught the second cable, came to a swift stop aboard the USS Nimitz, Persian Gulf. What I witnessed aboard the Nimitz, I never forgot. My purpose on the carrier was second to what surrounded me – readiness, respect, responsibility, and precision.
When we talk about readiness in the US military, we mean readiness to fight and win – win any skirmish, any engagement, any time, any place, any size, any duration, with any adversary.
Likewise, deterring war is a product of the adversary’s perceptions, their chances of winning against us, or their view of our readiness and our will to win.
So, readiness and will to win matter – at every level, for any military unit of any size – fleet, battlegroup, task force, division, brigade down to squadron, individual ship, platoon, and patrol.
Many of today’s leaders – especially politicians – would tell you, in language that leaves room for deficiencies, that readiness is a necessarily soft or unclear concept. In some ways this is right.
What constitutes readiness does change over time, but the concept of being prepared to fight and win, showing the will to win, does not change. It is vital to convincingly preventing war.
Modern definitions of readiness are increasingly broad, often confusing. Perhaps that is intentional – as it leaves room for avoiding responsibility, permits social experimentation, tolerates lags in re-capitalization, recruitment, retention, fresh training, and hard outcomes.
One defense definition is “the ability of military forces to fight and meet the demands of assigned missions.” Another is “ability of the Joint Force to meet immediate contingency and warfighting challenges while preparing for future challenges.” A third is “ability to execute national strategy assuming size, structure, and type of equipment are held constant.”
But let’s get real, use terms everyone understands – including adversaries. “Assigned missions” is vague – do we not mean “win?” Saying we must “meet …challenges” is a euphemism, not say what blunt words do, we must prepare to win. “Assuming” the battlefield is “held constant?” That should be a non-starter, as it never happens.
Missing in this is something we had not long ago, what those on the USS Nimitz personified, the kind of realism that makes each military and civilian involved feel personally responsible for the outcome – a clear-headedness about that outcome, deterring war, winning if we must engage.
Put differently, what is missing today is seriousness of purpose at the top, not among the rank and file who know their role, signed up to do it well, and deserve to be recognized as patriots.
What is missing – especially in Congress and this Administration – is an understanding that future wars are not theoretical but likely, and more likely the less ready we appear to be. Missing is the unwavering respect for military and mission, personal responsibility, precision felt below.
A recent GAO report makes the point, noting that we are lagging in availability of aircraft, F-35 sustainment, have a $1.8 billion ship sustainment backlog, poor Navy infrastructure, fatigue and crewing shortfalls, Army and Marine Corps shortfalls for mobile environments, unclear “space readiness.” Add record low recruitment and retention, and you…see the problem.
The contrast with our very recent past is glaring. When sailors on the USS Nimitz turned out on deck, passed each other below deck, did everything within their designator or job, they did it with respect for the job, mission, each other, and country. How they dressed, acted, stood, saluted, walked, talked, flew, and performed – was as if the entire process depended on them.
When they crewed the catapult, lifted landing signals, refueled planes, handled ordinance, launched, recovered, cleared runways, rose and slept in triple-stacked racks, did their jobs as “ship’s company,” managing every factor, food to nuclear reactor – they did it with precision and pride, not to let others down, not to let us down. Our leaders need to feel that commitment, too.
This, in the end, is what you call readiness – preparedness to fight and win, sending a clear signal to everyone that America is not distracted, not in warfighting. We wish not to fight, strive to resolve conflict peaceably, but if pushed – we will fight, and will win.
This is what swept me many years ago, later in my own service culture, then visiting parts of the fleet, an LA Class sub in San Diego, Wasp-class amphibious assault ship off the eastern seaboard, and in other venues where warfighting occurs, where we must be prepared.
When Ronald Reagan uttered the words “peace through strength,” he was saying that peace is assured by a convincing show of readiness and will to win. What he would not counsel, and what we should not tolerate, is today’s lack of focus, questions about readiness. We have time to get it right, but we need to get on it – because we can do better. We must, because conflict knocks.
Robert Charles is a former Assistant Secretary of State under Colin Powell, former Reagan and Bush 41 White House staffer, attorney, and naval intelligence officer (USNR). He wrote “Narcotics and Terrorism” (2003), “Eagles and Evergreens” (2018), and is National Spokesman for AMAC.
