Israel went to extraordinary lengths to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties. - Martin Dempsey

Number 2: We are a paradigm of diversity, now I kind've touched on that already. I had my Israeli counterpart of all people, one day say to me, "hey, do you understand why you are who you are?". You mean me personally? "No, your country." I said, 'well I think so, but I'd love to hear it from your perspective.' And he said, "it's the dash". And I said, 'what are you talking about the dash?' And he said, "the dash, Irish-American; Jewish-American; Arab-American; Black.. African-American." And you know I thought about it, and I thanked him actually for the perspective because we are a diverse nation, and that's who we are. I mean, I don't know how many of you in the audience are actually native Americans; my guess is not many. Everybody else here is at some level, from some other part of the world. And we're very diverse, we embrace diversity, and we embrace it because: in my case I'll tell you when I had the Joint Chiefs around me; the Army; the Navy; the Air Force; the Marines; the Coast Guard. I would never have been able to have been an effective Chairmen if everyone had been of one view, or if everyone was of one culture. It just wouldn't have worked. We would have convinced ourselves that we had a single perfect answer, when in fact the world lend itself to single perfect answers. So look, I think in terms of assertions about America's role, we have to show the world what's possible when you embrace diverse thinking, diverse personalities, diverse groups, diverse ethnicities, diverse religions. And if we don't do it, there's very few that are going to be able to do it. So whether we accept that or not, as I said earlier, is really an individual and ultimately at some level a national choice. But my assertion is, if you're asking me our role one part of it is to continue to be that paradigm of diversity.

There are a lot of memories in this book. I hope they are not too self-aggrandizing. I certainly don't mean them to be. Rather, I intend them to argue that life is a journey that must be felt to be meaningful, that it will always surprise us, and that it is an opportunity meant to be experienced by participation, not by observation. I intend them to show that history finds us, not the other way around. And since we can't know which of us history will find, we should each do all we can to prepare by living a life of character and consequence. I intend them to illustrate that we all- leaders and followers alike- have obligations to each other. Each chapter is a piece of a puzzle, no one piece more important than the other.

On March 16, 1968, in the Vietnamese hamlet of My Lai, American soldiers massacred between four hundred and five hundred unarmed civilians, mostly women and children. When the incident was discovered in November 1969, it quickly and severely eroded support for U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Though twenty-six soldiers were charged with criminal offenses, only one, Lieutenant William Calley Jr., was convicted. His trial took place between November 1970 and March 1971, and its details sparked widespread outrage. That summer, right after I had completed my plebe year and arrived home to stay for a month, I was called a "baby killer" for the first time. And not by some stranger. By a grammar-school classmate I had known most of my life. Not everyone in my hometown was so outspoken, but there was an unmistakable awkwardness in the many conversations I had with friends and relatives about the war that summer. The Vietnam War was a searing experience for those drafted to fight there, and it was polarizing at home. Lined up against opponents of the war were those who subscribed to the idea of "my country, right or wrong." Just as the "baby killer" moniker didn't sit well with me, neither did the idea that anything done in the name of the country must be right. It was a confusing time when peace signs and jingoistic slogans competed on bumper stickers across America.