Air Force FIFTY
TWO DAY INTERNATIONAL AIRPOWER SYMPOSIUM
April 23-24, 1997...Las Vegas, Nevada

President George Bush

Thank you all so very much. I am so pleased to be here. Hearing Doyle talk about a three-point landing, I must say it is a grossly unfair assessment of a largely successful something or other. I am so pleased to be here. I salute him, General Larson, and so many others who made this event successful. I saw Secretary Widnall at a luncheon earlier on. I want to pay my respects to her. General Fogleman, of course, who introduced me there, a man for whom I have great respect. If I totally bomb here in Las Vegas, blame Tony McPeak. He called me up and asked me to show up here. I hear that this indeed a highly successful gathering of Air Force people.

Let me start by apologizing, because I know I've let some of you down. It was reported that I was going to fly an F-16 while I was out here for this wonderful celebration. But, as my good friend Dana Carvey would say: "Not gonna do it. Would not be prudent."

I don't know how it got started by I expect hearing Doyles introduction that it might have had something to do with the parachute jumping. If that is what caused the problem, then its a good thing this isn't a NASA event. Can you see it? They would accuse me of wanting to captain Starship Enterprise or something?

I guess speculation was flattering. And let me be clear. When I trained as a pilot some 55 years ago, I came close to throwing up doing aerobatics in an M2S Stearman bi-plane at 90 knots, full-speed ahead and I vowed never again to go in a real fast airplane. So, whoever suggested the F-16, thank you, but no thanks. Besides that the press would have killed me and I dont have any more plans for thrill seeking.

Besides, the parachute jump, for me at least, was a quiet and personal thing. It was a goal I had set for myself, and it was satisfying to complete it because it helped me gain some sense of closure on a far less than successful jump, Sept. 2, 1944. But since everyone seems interested, I will let you in on another goal I've set for myself -- something I hope will atone for another unpleasant time in my past. Someday, if the right preparations can be made and if the timing is good, I want to eat broccoli again.

I know we've got 82 commanders from air forces around the world and I shouldnt say this in front of them, but the second largest press concentration that we had at the White House, the first had something to do with Gorbachev coming, nuclear holocaust and all of this. The second was when the broccoli trucks arrived at the South Lawn and I was saying, well, Im not going out there to greet these guys and Barbara said, I'll do it. Out she goes, greets the trucks. They say to her what are you going to do with all this broccoli, Mrs. Bush? She said, we will give this to the homeless. It is wonderful. And then [John] Sununu leaned over to her and said, why do you think they left home in the first place? No more broccoli jokes. No more F-16 jokes.

Now for a couple of serious comments before either dodging or responding to your questions. It is an honor for me to be here to be a small part of this wonderfully proud occasion as the U.S. Air Force marks its 50 years of service to our country.

I was pleased to have had that visit with some of the Global Air Chiefs before this. The presence of these most respected leaders today from around the world is a visible symbol of the friendship existing between the United States and our many allies. And, I also like to think it is a symbol of the respect that many of this countries have for our great Air Force. I join all of you in welcoming everybody from whatever country is here on this 50th anniversary.

I also want to salute the Air Force Association for their efforts not only to help ensure the festivities and conferences this week go off without a hitch, but also for their diligent work through the years looking out for the men and women who make up the Air Force, those who have proudly served, some who need help after their service is over and everyone who serves in, and cares for, the Air Force is in the Associations debt.

Finally, let me offer a word of gratitude to the invitation committee. You took the high road in asking me to be here, overlooking the fact I was ... a Navy man. And I appreciate it. As I alluded to earlier, today is indeed a proud day -- as most milestone are.

Today we celebrate not only the rich history, but the dazzling technological achievements, and the stirring patriotism of a remarkable organization. And as with any group, the story of the Air Forces first 50 years has been authored by the endless roll call of men and women who have worn the uniform -- and performed countless acts of sacrifice.

Confronting a complex and dangerous world over the last half century, they have been bound together by one common mission -- and a shared dedication to seeing it through. Being here today, I am reminded that one of the things I do miss about my previous job is working with the men and women of our Armed Forces. During those four years of dramatic change, when we witnessed and hopefully helped to shape a number of historical events, I never failed to be inspired by those who lived by the code, "duty, honor, and country." And sure, there are other things I miss about the White House. I miss playing golf when I was President. You have a putt this long, "Thats good, Sir, put it in your pocket. Youd never miss one like that, Sir, no." I was down playing the Augusta National Sunday. Had a putt this long. "Mind holing it out, George?" Things have changed. I miss the golf at the White House.

There are other things I don't miss; I don't miss the national press and I love telling people about that. We got a call early on in my post-presidency life. 60 Minutes called and said, "We would like President Bush to be on 60 Minutes. We had a tough, woman chief of staff named Rose. She said, no way, Leslie. And Leslie said, "Doesn't he realize we have the largest audience of any kind of show like this in the whole world?" And Rose said, "Yeah, and dont realize he doesn't give a damn about that any more?" And it is true. It is this wonderful feeling of liberation.

But one of the truly special privileges I had a President -- and there were many -- was to be Commander-in-Chief at what I believe was perhaps the Air Forces finest hour in its 50 years.

I'm referring, of course, to the role that air power played in the Gulf. To be clear, the historic victory in the Gulf over tyranny was a team effort and it was a magnificent team effort. Each branch of the service, and every country who contributed one soldier, deserves great credit for the way we stood against Iraqs brutal dictator. Together, we said that Saddams aggression would not stand; and together, we accomplished our mission. And the beautiful thing was, we did it with honor.

I know you will be hearing a video message from Margaret Thatcher after Im done, which is fitting, because she never wavered throughout the crisis. I'll forget when it became my lot after talking to our services to let a certain ship go back to Aden, not interdicted at sea. We had a policy where we were going to interdict every ship from now on. There was some intelligence and special reasons to let this one go back and I draw the bean that had to call her up. I called her and said, "Margaret, it is out conclusion that we ought to not interdict this ship at this juncture." And she said, "Well, fine, George. I agree with that. But this is no time to go wobbly." Thank you, Margaret. Believe me, Margaret Thatcher never went wobbly. And, nor, I might add, did her successor, my dear friend John Major, a steadfast ally. I'll never forget flying up to Camp David, we got grounded at Frederick, Maryland. He came in his chopper from Andrews. I came in from the White House. I said to Brent Scowcroft, my trusted Air Force friend that ran the National Security Council, "Do you think we really ought tell him the details of the plan at this juncture?" Because we had set a certain time, with the advice of several right in this room as to when we would have to go to war. He said, "Well, you must tell him. He is our ally." I thought maybe hed like at least another week in the job to get his feet on the ground as prime minister. So I told him and he never wavered. He said, "We will be with you 100 percent of the way" and the Brits were and every other ally we had was and I will always be grateful to him.

I think history is only beginning to write of your accomplishments, to take into account the role the Air Force played. Nobody can do that and not be in awe. Consider this: More than 116,000 Allied air sorties were flown during the course of the war; 37 planes were lost in combat. Of course, thats 37 too many; but when you take into account the unbelievable challenges involved not only for the pilots, but for everyone involved in the operation -- this is a remarkable achievement. It was a far less loss of aircraft than some of the gloom predictors in the debate that raged before the war began. Thanks to your determination and skill, we owned the sky from the start; and the contributions that made to our ultimate victory were crucial.

Going into the war, however, some were not convinced of the outcome and I can understand this. I'll never forget the protests in front of the White House, or the critics on Capitol Hill and in the media who spoke bleakly with dire predictions of "50,000 body bags."

Needless to say, this was different from my war experience when I was still just a kid.

During World War II, our country was together; it was united. Patriotism soared. The minute I heard about Pearl Harbor, I was like every other kid, I knew I wanted to serve. Barbara also did her part -- she was kind of a latter-day Rosie the Riveter -- working in a nuts-and-bolts factory in Porchester, New York. We were in it together; and when the war was over, a grateful nation saluted its veterans. It was the right thing to do.

Years later, I saw our nation politically and socially divided over Vietnam, a war in which many of you fought so honorably. I saw the ugly demonstrations at home and abroad. I saw people shirk their responsibilities. And worst of all, I saw men who fought for their country -- who did their duty -- return home to vilification.

But there was another difference: During World War II, the military was allowed to conduct their operations free of any undue interference from the politicians. That was not the case in Vietnam. So once I became President, I already had firm convictions about how to conduct a war effort: First, define the mission; then let the President do the diplomacy and the politics and the press; and if that diplomacy does not lead to a peaceful solution, then you let the military do the fighting and carry out the mission.

I learned something else from World War II: That it is crucial that our Nation be militarily prepared for whatever crisis might erupt. When Pearl Harbor happened, we were not ready. We were completely unprepared. We were still clinging to some quasi-isolationistic notion that we could avoid confrontation with the Axis Powers -- that we wouldnt have to send American boys to fight overseas. We could keep 'em home.

Forty years later, when President Reagan assumed office, we were likewise not near as prepared as we should have been. President Reagan faced a lot of hostility in Congress and in the press, but he and I both did our level best to have our Armed Forces at the ready.

And in 1990, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait with the fourth largest army in the world at his command, we were indeed ready. The "smart" weapons, which had not particularly distinguished themselves in Vietnam, were now at their sophisticated best.

I remember an early planning meeting up at Camp David with General Powell, General Schwarzkopf and General McPeak and others. These generals gave a superb presentation detailing what our Air Force could do -- using weaponry on the cutting edge of technology. To many of you, I would say, they had consulted regularly with the chiefs of other air forces from around the world. I later asked General Scowcroft, my trusted advisor, -- in fact I remember asking him the day these guys left Camp David -- I said, do they know what they are talking about? Do they really believe that we can do the things that theyve just told me they could do?

Tony McPeak has heard this, but it is a true story. Two days before the air war started, I invited him and Dick Cheney to come to the White House in the Residence. Tony was just back from the desert; he had been out their with the forces. He came over to a quiet lunch upstairs. And I knew then that if our last ditch diplomatic effort failed, then the air war would commence. We sent Jim Baker to meet Tariq Aziz in Geneva, giving peace one last chance. And incidentally, this particular mission caused a tremendous amount of heartburn around the world, because some of our allies, understandably, feared we would somehow give in or that at the last minute, we would compromise with Saddam. Not so!

As we ate that lunch, the drums of protest led by the presiding bishop of my church, the Episcopal Church, were beating right outside the White House Residence. I'll never forget it. I dont know if Tony and Dick Cheney remember it. But at that lunch, I asked Tony McPeak if he was as confident now as he had been during the Camp David meeting several months before. He replied, "Sir, I am more confident." And he was right.

I'll never forget the tension I felt that night before the battle began. Nor will I forget the relief I felt as our pilots and weapons lived up to their promise. When I say "our" I mean coalition, too, because I think there were 12 countries or maybe more that actually had people in the air at various times in this war. The skill of our coalition pilots and the amazing accuracy with which those weapons performed spared an awful lot of civilian life. It enabled us to spare monuments and day care centers. And in the process, we softened up the defenses of a brutal aggressor.

Our plans, our targeters were compassionate in the targeting. One of the things that irked me the most and will until the day I die was the propaganda that was spewed by some of our own networks to the American people about how we were targeting civilians. Every man in this room, every woman in this room responsible in any way knows that this was not our objective nor was this was we did. We did it with honor. We saved innocent civilian life as best we could. I dont think about that milk factory and that American language sign.

No, we softened up this brutal aggressor and the rest, as they say, is history. But I want to note here that without the superb work turned in by General McPeak and the other people in our Air Force -- and that of our coalition partners -- our success in Desert Storm surely would have been tempered.

Furthermore, I believe that the technological advances showcased during that conflict will, in the future, help to deter war -- for dont lose sight of the fact that the credibility of our fighting forces achieved new heights around the world. I hope our guests here from abroad will forgive one parochial comment on my part: but in the wake of the war, few were left doubting the will or the capability of the United States of America.

But in looking to the future, we cannot relax our guard. The superpower conflict is gone and I am so proud that the head of the Russian air force is with us here today. I salute him. The superpower conflict is over. The Soviet Bear is gone, but new threats have emerged.

People say to me all the time, "Who's the enemy?" The enemy we face today is instability. It is unpredictability. It is a virulent drug trade, and the spread of the weapons of mass destruction. And it is terrorism, the weapon of cowards and malcontents.

All of this and more helps to explain why I feel the United States must stay strong in the world. I hope again our guests from abroad will forgive me if I make the point, but I feel very strongly that we, given our largess, given our GDP, given our technological wonders, we must continue to lead. It is true that today we are the only superpower and I don't say that chauvinistically. It is just a matter of fact. With the Cold War over, our policy priorities have shifted to getting our domestic and economic house in order. That is fine, but it should not be done at the expense of our military strength and preparedness.

In that sense, the same timeless message that Billy Mitchell (upon whose legacy the Air Force Association was built) preached towards the beginning of this century on the need for preparedness -- when air power was in its early stages. It is just as true today, though, as we approach the new millennium. Billy learned his lessons way back in World War I. I learned mine way back in World War II. And the lesson I did learn is that the United States must stay involved around the world and we must not listen to that selfishly sirens call of isolation and protection, weve done our part, come home America. We will rue that day if we listen to those selfish words.

Interestingly, the voices of isolation today were the same ones that called on me not to use force back in 1990. Because of the way the war ended, because of the way you fought, one of the most one-sided victories in military history, we tend to forget that some of the voices, I think of, and I don't want to single people out badly, but Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot, fighting against any use of force, every Democratic leader in Congress, every single one of them, voting against the key resolution to give the President the authority to "use whatever means necessary" to understand this aggression.

I can understand, given the pressures on the military, given the charges that we couldn't do the job that these general officers told me we could. I could understand all that. And I have no bitterness in my heart. Some, perhaps remembering our experience in Vietnam, had serious reservations about our military. I know that Saddam Hussein had serious reservations, miscalculations about my own will and the will of the American people. But had I listened to these voices of doubt, I am convinced just as I am standing here that Saddam Hussein would be in Riyadh today, not in the sands of Kuwait.

In the end, Desert Storm did more than beat Saddam Hussein back: It also restored American credibility around the world. And here at home, in a marvelous way that I am not sure I fully understand, it healed the wounds of Vietnam. I'll never forget the Vietnam veterans marching with the Desert Storm veterans, receiving at last the applause they had been denied by a country divided. And that is something in which we can all take great pride; it is something in which I think we can all take great pride.

Nearly seven years ago, the U.S. Air Force answered the call of duty during our urgent hour of need; and your efforts then led the formation of the Desert Shield that preceded the Storm.

But for 50 years, you have been freedoms shield -- ever vigilant in defending our precious way of life; ever ready to bear perilous burdens in the struggle against evil.

And so for your courage and sacrifice, I salute you; to each coalition member here, and each air force from around the world, whether you were in the coalition or not, I salute you; and for our Nation, I wish you every single one of you continued success. And may God bless you all. Thank you, very, very much.

General Shaud: President Bush has said he will take questions. Sir, what we have done is polled the membership and I believe I have some questions that will represent what is on the mind of our audience. One of our subjects this morning with the global air chiefs had to do with coalitions. We had Chuck Horner and Mike Ryan both talk to that a little bit. Let me ask you a question on that. This question goes back to the Gulf War. One of the significant aspects of that war was your role in building a coalition that held together and achieved victory. What do you see as the greatest challenges facing future U.S. Presidents in trying to build a coalition?

President Bush: I guess it is easier to do it if the risk is apparent. In our case, the risk and the mission were clear. Saddam Hussein, with his fourth largest army, had taken over his neighbor. It became clear to most leaders around the world that we had to do something about it. We went to the United Nations and along with many countries here helped pass resolutions to give peace a chance, to let sanctions work, to do all of these things. But the mission was clear -- contain that aggression. So in terms of building future coalitions, I think if the mission is clear and if the cause is just, I think you can build it. One of the things we did was to use the United Nations the way the founders thought it should be used back in the late 1940s, when the UN was founded. One of the reasons we could do that for the first time in history was because we did not face automatic vetoes from our Russian friends or from China.

In forming a coalition in the future, if the coalition is meant for action, I would say you need to get the imprimatur of international law that the United Nations can put over a mission. I am opposed to putting U.S. forces under the command of the United Nations. I dont think that is an effective way, and I expect many commanders here from other countries would agree with that statement. But I think the best way to form the coalition is to have this imprimatur of international law on your side, and have a very clear mission. In this case, the mission was clear. I read pundit after pundit who said, "Well, why didn't you go into Baghdad? Or, why didnt you go in and occupy Iraq and get rid of Saddam Hussein." Had we done that, I think it would have been impossible to form a coalition in the future. We defined the mission as to end the aggression. It wasnt to kill Saddam Hussein. It wasnt to finish off the Republican Guard. It was to kick his forces out of the sands of Kuwait. And, you guys did it.

Part of coalition building has to be the imprimatur of international law and then it has to have clarity of mission so that other countries, so others will to join them. Everybody has to be assured that they are not going to exceed that mission. Back to Iraq. If we had gone in, the coalition would have instantly shattered, in my view, and we would have been all but alone.

General Shaud: Thank you, sir. The next question is also about a coalition that has existed a long time, our North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The NATO air chiefs are here, as well as air chiefs from Eastern Europe. The question is this, some are expressing concern over the current plans for NATO enlargement and expanded cooperation. In particular, what do you see as pros and cons of expanding the NATO alliance?

President Bush: The biggest con is that the Russians ask the right question. The Russians say, "hey, you tell us we are your friends. Why do you want to move your forces, that historically have been hostile to us closer to our border." We have to answer that question. I think the administration is trying to answer that question by giving proper assurance to Russia that we are not its enemy. But I would make the argument to Mr. Yeltsin and to the Russians that having continue U.S. presence in NATO and then having these Eastern European countries in NATO is a guarantee to Russia of its safety. I felt the same way about renewing the security commitment to Japan. China didn't like it, but it was in Chinas interest to have us continually involved in the Pacific.

We do some dumb things from time to time but nobody accuses us of seeking hegemony anymore or of seeking territorial expansion, whether it is in the Pacific or in NATO. I think the biggest problem, and again I think it is being worked by people far smarter than I, is to convince the Russians that this is not inimicable to their interests and then to keep NATO together with new members. At some point, if it gets to be like the CSCE, the OSCE or all these other groups, that it becomes meaningless. I haven't kept up with it enough to know at what juncture that is the danger.

General Shaud: The next question concerns the 9th of November, 1989, when the Berlin Wall came down. You have set the tone and policy that shaped the early transition in the new post-Cold War era. Looking back over the last eight years or so since 1989, which policies do you think have been most effective? What would you have changed if you had to do that again?

President Bush: If you mean the policies of our Administration, I think I was right to stand with Helmut Kohl early on in spite of the understandable doubts of Margaret Thatcher and Francois Mitterand -- stand with Kohl in terms of unification of Germany. I think we were right to insist that Germany stay inside NATO. One of the proposals Mr. Gorbachev made was to unify Germany, but have Germany outside of the alliance. Helmut Kohl did not want that and we stood firmly and tried to work with Gorbachev to be sure that didnt happen. Another problem with that was the border with Poland. The Poles were extraordinarily concerned because Kohl would not early on guarantee the existing borders. He said he wanted to wait until a unified German legislature could enter into a binding agreement with the Poles, which subsequently happened. But there were all kinds of problems connected with the unification of Germany that Id like to think our diplomats and our military handled very well. That was what we did right. Now for what we could have done differently.

I don't want to be critical, but I think we did the right thing in Somalia. We were very selective and I know a lot of people in the military wondered what the heck we were doing. We cannot be the worlds policeman. But we did end the starvation. What went wrong was there was mission creep and we went beyond what our original objective. That is something that we ought to avoid and that is one of the reasons I made the pitch in these remarks for clearly defining the mission and then letting the military accomplish it. Because in Somalia, we did that.

We ended it, but when we saw our helicopter pilots dragged by their heals through the dusty streets of Mogadishu, I was heart broken. And I am not trying to blame our successors, but I just don't think we should have gotten involved in peace keeping and peace making there, having defined our mission as purely humanitarian. I'll think a little longer and Im sure Ill think of a lot of things we did wrong, but I dont want to talk about them too much.

General Shaud: This is an appropriate question for all the nations here. While in office you instituted a 25 percent reduction in U.S. force structure. Since then, cuts have gone much further. What is your view on the current state of U.S. military forces?

President Bush: I am embarrassed to say that I dont keep up with the actual force levels as much as I should. I remember there was a lot of Pentagon angst that some in this room brought to my attention when we did make reductions. We had concluded upon the advice of the chiefs that the reductions that we proposed would be about as far as we could go and still have proper readiness and still be able to accomplish whatever mission would be sent our way. I am embarrassed to say I just dont know enough about the details of what has happened to give you a more authoritative answer.

General Shaud: Sir, let me go to Desert Storm. I wondered if there was a point during the air war, when you said to yourself, yes, Tony is right about this.

President Bush: Yes, it was about five after seven on the first night. Barbara and I were sitting in the White House and like everybody we turned into the intelligence channel, CNN. We saw this guys ducking and darting around their rooms. About seven minutes of seven that night in U.S. time, the sky lit up in Baghdad and there was a lot of firing. I knew it wasnt supposed to happen until seven oclock. The first report that we got from the Pentagon was relayed properly by Secretary Cheney, was that things had gone very well. That was an enormous relief. And far more important to me, and I hope I don't offend anybody here, than how our technology worked, was how safe were the lives of our pilots and our crewmen. When that report came in, not too many hours later, there was just a huge sigh of relief in the White House and I expect in everybodys house all across this country. I'll never forget it.

General Shaud: Sir, one last question. Under what circumstance do you believe the U.S. should put its Armed Forces in harms way and in combat?

President Bush: People say to me, what is the most difficult decision of a President? In the first place, I vowed when I became President that I would never complain of the loneliness of the job and the isolation and nobody understands the difficulty and all of that. A I didnt, because I had a great team in the White House and across the river in the Pentagon. It never occurred to me that we should complain about that.

The most difficult decision the President makes, however, is when he has to send somebody elses kid, son or daughter, into harms way. I dont know how to elaborate on it beyond that being the most difficult decision.

I keep coming back to the fact that you have to have total confidence in your people, and you have to know that the mission can be accomplished. All during the run up to the actual fighting, I must confess to you guys, I wondered and gradually got to be convinced. I expect our coalition force partners felt the same. I wondered how right you were in assessing the enemy and wondering how many deaths there would be. Some of that was because there was so much protest, so much punditry, claiming that we were going to lose 50,000 people. Life magazine, I believe, had a sample of the 50,000 body bags that would await our troops.

Ill tell you another personal story that added to my angst. Bishop Browning of Anford, a true pacifist and a guy I respect, called up and asked to come see me. He was protesting our involvement in the Gulf. By the way, I never understood why people beat drums when they are unhappy about things because it irritated the hell out of me, but maybe that is why they did it. Anyway, he came over. I called Jim Baker, also an Episcopalian, I said, Jimmy, get over here, our top man is coming. To a Catholic, it would be like the Pope visiting.

Well, the bishop comes over and said, "the use of force is immoral. You must not use force." I said, "Ed, have you read the Amnesty International report that talks about the raping of these 13 year old girls who under that wonderful culture have their lives ruined forever. Have you read about where they are taking the babies out of the incubators to carry off the incubator? Did you read in that report about the 14-year-old kid, who is driven home and when the family answers the door they said, 'we brought your 14-year-old son home, but when the family came out to get their son, they took a gun out and shot the 14-year-old. His crime was carrying some pamphlet." I asked the bishop to read that and he did. He took it home. Afterwards, he sent me a letter which said, "I read the report, and I wept, but the use of force is immoral. You must not use force." The pressures on us over this use of force were enormous.

They were the same, Im sure, on the very general officers who are here and on everyone else. It was an honest debate, but in the final analysis, only the President makes that decision. It is the toughest decision the President faces, and I have the satisfaction of knowing that history will say that we made the right decision. But, in response to your question, that is the toughest decision any President can make.

General Shaud. You honor us with your presence.