Posted on 02/26/2011 7:59:10 AM PST by fight_truth_decay
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates bluntly told an audience of West Point cadets on Friday that it would be unwise for the United States to ever fight another war like Iraq or Afghanistan, and that the chances of carrying out a change of regime in that fashion again are slim.
"In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should 'have his head examined,' as General MacArthur so delicately put it,"Mr. Gates told an assembly of Army cadets. Huffington Post
HIGHLIGHTS
"The odds of repeating another Afghanistan or Iraq -- invading, pacifying and administering a large third-world country -- may be low," Gates said.
He did not directly criticize the Bush administration's decisions to go to war. Even so, his never-again formulation was unusually pointed, especially at a time of upheaval across the Arab world and beyond.
He said Iraq and Afghanistan had become known as “the captains' wars” because “officers of lower and lower rank were put in the position of making decisions of higher and higher degrees of consequence and complexity.”
Gates has said that he would leave office this year, and the speech at West Point could be heard as his farewell to the Army. NYT
(Excerpt) Read more at presstv.ir ...
We have a fifth column running the nation so we are committing suicide at home and squandering our resources abroad. Obama's real agenda is the elimination of America as the policeman of the world. We have a fifth column running the country working to destroy the economic system which sustains the American Navy, the Marine Corps,and which makes our Air Force and Army the envy of the world. We have an energy policy guaranteed to disembowel the stomach of our economy.
Above all, we have taken a sledgehammer to the foundation of our power. We have squandered our substance. we are committing suicide at home and squandering our resources abroad
The mindless reaction of Freepers first to criticize Gates personally and then to react to his point viscerally, reflects badly on this thread. The reality is that the war in Iraq was a mistake. We very narrowly pulled out a "victory" so it appears contemporaneously as though it were in fact a victory but it was the high water mark of America as a world power.
Gates is prudent to plead that we must be more careful about where we commit our ever diminishing resources. What was our national interest in the Iraq war? How are those interests advanced? How many hundreds of billions of dollars did it cost to advance those interests? Were the victories really permanent? Was it worth it?
By way of full disclosure, I can pull up old posts in which I fervently supported the conquest of Iraq. My fear was that Obama would obtain the bomb, pass it off to terrorists who would explode it in an American homeland city. The end result of a few atomic bombs going off in our homeland cities would be the loss of our sovereignty, the loss of everything.
All the evidence since the war indicates that this was not a realistic fear. I am not one to shrink from making war. I am one to shrink from making war for the wrong reasons, for making war unconnected with real and vital national interests. For example, I have often advocated a strike against Iran to prevent it getting the bomb. How much better would it have been had the United States gone to war against Iran instead of Iraq? The answer is self-evident.
But that is, I think, precisely what Sec. Gates is advocating, a realpolitik assessment of our interests when we make war. I do not now regret the Iraq war, which I so fervently supported, because it was immoral, I regret it because it did not weigh in the balance of advancing American interests for the cost.
I've come to the same conclusion about Afghanistan. We are now attempting a replay of the surge which "succeeded" in Iraq and it is very possible that the surge in Afghanistan will also "succeed".
I'm getting old now and I think about my grandchildren and I wonder whether they will be safer because of these surges. I think not. I think those countries will revert to their norm before my grandchildren grow up. I think America is the last best hope for the world and when we squander our substance and make the world more dangerous and ourselves less powerful we put those grandchildren in a dangerous place.
I do not understand how making war against the nation of Afghanistan, and part of the nation of Pakistan, will somehow prevent another 19 men who are neither Iraqis nor Afghans from hijacking another plane and blowing up another building?
As we decline economically at home, we are obdurately unwilling to get true to ourselves and conserve our strength so we can remain lethal for the backs-to- the-wall defense of our existence. We need to be feared abroad and that means that we must thoroughly reassess how we wage war, and why, so that when we do make war we can do it decisively, cheaply, and profitably.
Gates to his credit is telling us to do just exactly that.
“No, when are attacked again, we should attack those who attacked us, not (as in the case of Iraq) a secular dictator who never attacked us.”
Golly. Guess I imagined the AAA fired my way during the years prior to GW2...
As long as DumBO is Pres__ent, the next war will be over some green agenda.
i.e. Mexico or Brazil deciding the dollar is worthless and will use their own oil for themselves.
Agreed. Trying to nation-build in a place like Afghanistan is a losing proposition. But what to do about threats to the USA? My only thought is that we must simply ban entry into the USA for any person from any of 25-30 Mid-East/South Asian countries.
When the rest of the world is controlled by enemies of Freedom, we will drown in real blood, not red ink.
Do you think we’re going to be prosperous when there is no South Korea, etc? When Red China destroys the democracies and controls Asia? When radical Islam rules the Middle East’s resources? When the Irans and N Koreas have nuclear ICBM’s aimed at us? When Eurpoe is lost?
We thrive because we exist in a huge capitalist Free World.
I agree we have to pick and choose our actions. My pick would have been to hammer Iran and Syria while we were sitting between them with huge forces in Iraq.
Gates is a republican foreign policy realist along with Kissinger, George Schultz, Colin Powell, James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Condi Rice, etc.
As opposed to being a republican foreign policy NeoCon, like Cheney, Bolton, Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Richard Perle, etc
As opposed to being a foreign policy isolationist like Ron Paul, Rand Paul, or Pat Buchanan.
A republican president's foreign policy team will always be composed of Realists and NeoCons with Realists usually serving as Secretary of State and National Security Adviser while a NeoCon usually gets the job as Sec of Defense.
OTOH there are 3 foreign policy groups in the dem party: Realists, Liberal Interventionists, and anti-war pacifists. A dem president's foreign policy team is always composed of Realists and Liberal Interventionists and the job of Sec of State usually goes to a Liberal Interventionist while Realists usually serve as Sec of Defense and NSA.
Under GW Bush the NeoCons had the upper hand over the Realists and under GHW Bush the Realists had the upper hand. In Reagan's first term the NeoCons had the upper hand but in Reagan's second term the Realists had the upper hand.
Most of the world will always be dominated by the enemies of freedom. But history tells us that a nation cannot remake the world as it would like it to be without falling victim to national exhaustion and/or internal moral decay. Spain, France, Germany and Great Britain all ruined national power by valuing foreign adventures over conserving and developing long term internal strength. Even in our own history, the United States rose to its status as the world's top power by being the last power to join World War II. Today's new hawks are following the deadly path of having our nation being the first power to shed blood and treasure.
We thrive because we exist in a huge capitalist Free World.
If wars are to be fought for prosperity, maybe the lefties are right about their soak the rich tax schemes. The ones who benefit the most should pay the most. And maybe we need a national draft so that the sons of the rich can earn their prosperity with their blood also. The greatest defense against a socialist transformation from within is to greatly restrain our involvements in the eternal strifes of other lands.
I agree we have to pick and choose our actions.
Yes, a true patriot will always believe in fighting for vital national interests. I just think we need to cut down the number of interests we see as vital. The vital interest to me is domestic security and tranquility and I believe those have been compromised by adventures on the other side of the world.
A far leftist is against America going to war because he is afraid we'll win. A conservative opponent to war is opposed because he he's afraid that we'll lose (in the long run).
The lefties want a less hawkish foreign policy so we can embrace and surrender national identity to the rest of the world. Conservative opponents to adventures want a more restrained policy so we can stand apart and conserve national identity.
Well said. Yes, it’s our grandchildren and beyond that should be considered. All wars seem important at the time. For example look at the Crimean War. What good is that blood and treasure England spilt there doing them now? And France’s endless wars left the nation unequal to the ultimate test in 1940. And on the other side, Russia’s crude militarism left that nation wide open for the Bolshevik nightmare.
It is nice to see that he is getting his foreign policy from “The Princess Bride”
Vizzini: You only think I guessed wrong! That’s what’s so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is “never get involved in a land war in Asia” - but only slightly less well-known is this: “Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line”! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...
Vizzini: [Vizzini stops suddenly,his smile frozen on his face and falls to the right out of camera dead]
Buttercup: And to think, all that time it was your cup that was poisoned.
Man in Black: They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder.
Perhaps he felt it would be better to stay on as an advocate than throw them to the wolves.
Right. I'm sure that's what he told Obama when Obama was figuring out whether to keep him on as the Secretary of Defense.
Was interested in what you had to say.
So, you believe Palin could do the job?
I agree when it came to Bush announcing Victory---it should have ended then in Iraq.
But our leaders seem to feel we have to mend our actions for the world to see even when we are right in the intent of our actions. The old liberal rhetoric claiming: The world hates us.
Now we are backing out of a tribal mountainous area of Afghanistan as certain tribes are said to be more tumultuous because we are there.
Meanwhile al-Qaeda is in Tijuana moving closer to our southern borders.
I find myself cheering for Mossad: They are claimed to have taken out 3 top nuclear scientists in Iran. There top scientist has been in hiding for 2 years. Mossad-Israel send the Worm that took down the technological workings of Iran's nuclear program, at least delayed it. Clinton was quick to report our embargo has helped. [there is never a mention of Mossad]
Mossad was charged with the assassination of a major weapons smuggler and kidnapper in Dubai on route to China. The faces of over a dozen covert operatives from other countries [not the US] using false passports, looking up at airport surveillance cameras. Their faces splashed on a wanted list all over the media for the world to see.
My respect goes out to Mossad! in fighting the war on terror the way it should be fought--behind the scenes.
Hey, understand the President's Motown party was a great hit in celebrating Black History Month. The concert will be broadcast on PBS on March 1 and will also be shown via the American Forces Network to American servicemen and women and civilians at U.S. Department of Defence locations around the world who couldn't make the event, as they were out killing bad guys so the celebrities[black and white] could sing and party on down.
As we saw with Ronald Reagan, a President needs common sense, executive management skills, communication skills, and PRINCIPLES. Obama only has the oratory skills, and that’s when he is delivering prepared remarks via teleprompter.
Yeah, I think Sarah’s got the right stuff. The most critical factor determining whether she would make a great President is the selection of her Cabinet and other key posts.
For example, she could hire me for an IG post and watch with satisfaction as I uncover the massive waste, fraud, and abuse that have become rampant in every department.
Well..that settles that..... ;) 
No, you didn’t imagine the Clinton sent Americans to police the airspace of Iraq and enforce starvation embargo for no good reason in the 1990s while he was banging Monica.
And while he was playing hide the cigar with Monica, he was moving balances from the Social Security bottom line to the deficit bottom line. Viola ~ no more deficit!
This hornets’ nest was stirred up when President Obama was still in diapers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.