Skip to comments.Gates's warning: Avoid land war in Asia, Middle East, and Africa
Posted on 02/28/2011 6:45:35 AM PST by Racehorse
As he winds down a remarkable Pentagon career overseeing two long and very costly wars, wrestling with a military-industrial complex resistant to his budget moves aimed at questionable weapons, and shaking up the senior officer corps Defense Secretary Robert Gates has a message for his successor.
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 [Douglas] MacArthur so delicately put it.
We cant know with absolute certainty what the future of warfare will hold, but we do know it will be exceedingly complex, unpredictable, and as they say in the staff colleges unstructured, he said. Just think about the range of security challenges we face right now beyond Iraq and Afghanistan: terrorism and terrorists in search of weapons of mass destruction, Iran, North Korea, military modernization programs in Russia and China, failed and failing states, revolution in the Middle East, cyber, piracy, proliferation, natural and man-made disasters, and more.
And I must tell you, when it comes to predicting the nature and location of our next military engagements, since Vietnam, our record has been perfect, he quipped. We have never once gotten it right, from the Mayaguez to Grenada, Panama, Somalia, the Balkans, Haiti, Kuwait, Iraq, and more we had no idea a year before any of these missions that we would be so engaged.
There has been an overwhelming tendency of our defense bureaucracy to focus on preparing for future high-end conflicts priorities often based, ironically, on what transpired in the last century as opposed to the messy fights in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
That leaves just Europe and South America..................
Can SOMEONE in that admin keep their frickin’ mouths shut and ADVISE the President and go home. WHY do we have to make news all the time!!!
When you don’t fight a war to win it, the outcomes are fairly predictable. We haven’t done that since 1945.
Well, as everybody who watched The Princess Bride knows, the First Rule is “Never get involved in a land war in Asia.”
However, if we ditch some of the more moronic rules of land warfare that seem to be designed to prevent us from winning, the ME is perfectly doable...
Bush’s choice and Obama’s - a loser.
Instead of saying we should avoid a war, he should have said we should avoid PROLONGED POLICE ACTIONS in countries where our presence is not appreciated or wanted.
America, given the fickle nature of its voting populace, should ONLY fight blitzkrieg like wars - using overwhemling military technology and force to totally smash an opponent and his infrastruture into dust and then pull out. Let someone else pick up the pieces - its not our damn job to be the fixer-upper of the world. Our military should only be employed in the event our strategic interests or those of a VALUED ally - like Israel, are at stake. And only then when they are opperating in a situation of military advantage.
Prolonged police actions are expensive, bloody, raise public opposition and are counterproductive.
Twice Kennedy talked about Asia with General Douglas MacArthur, and each time he came away hushed and thoughtful from what he considered an audience with greatness. MacArthur told Kennedy both times to stay out of a land war on mainland Asia.
You forgot North America, ie, Obama's war on the United States.
“Gates’s warning: Avoid land war in Asia, Middle East, and Africa”
My warning: Avoid ‘democracy building’ in Asia, Middle East, and Africa where tribal chiefs and mullahs are it.
Or we could declare war on Canada.......................
MacArthur did warn about getting involved in a land war in Asia but Gates is a far cry from a MacArthur....he’s been nothing but a “yes” man. Someone must have given him notes for the speech. He’s just not that smart.
So, we’ve been spending billions and billions of dollars on whiz-bang weapons systems of questionable utility, but are incapable of successfully pursuing the actions - fought with manpower and off-the-shelf hardware - that we’re faced with in the real world as it exists...
But Defense Contractors and their pet Congresscritters are getting rich, so it’s okay....
Seems if he believes this, then must advise Obama to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan now.
Robert "Strange" McNamara
If you like THAT one, then go over to the "Low flow toilets causing a stink in SF" thread - I put a Seinfeld "Low flow...I don't like the sound of that!" there.
Canada, U.S. agree to use each others troops in civil emergencies
By Ottawa Citizen ^ | February 22, 2008
Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2011 5:19:41 AM by DeaconBenjamin
Canada and the U.S. signed an agreement that paves the way for either nation to send troops across each others borders during an emergency. Some question why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal.
Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, signed Feb. 14 in Texas.
The U.S. Northern Command publicized the agreement outlining how its top officer, Gen. Gene Renuart, and Canadian Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, head of Canada Command, signed the plan, which allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.
What a strategic thinker he’s turning out to be!
The North American Union is on its way. Coming soon to a state government near you!..........
That leaves just Europe and South America..................
You forgot that Eastern Europe and Venezuela are also off limits. We can't even take on Russia's/the "Former" Soviet military's conventional threat anymore without resorting to nukes.
Bobby Gates has always been bad.
Which explains why the last two loser Presidents have had him as SecDef
Bullseye! Right on the money, Zulu.
You go in. Kick their ass for bothering you. Then you leave with a threat to do it again if they bother you again.
What's hard about that?
Which is just a backhanded way of calling his predecessor a lunatic. Such a class act!
“MacArthur told Kennedy both times to stay out of a land war on mainland Asia.”
Somehow the word; “INCONCEIVABLE”, come to mind...
Somehow the word; “INCONCEIVABLE”, comes to mind...
There has been an overwhelming tendency of our defense bureaucracy to focus on preparing for future high-end conflicts priorities often based, ironically, on what transpired in the last century as opposed to the messy fights in Iraq and Afghanistan,
For good reason. The military is best used in a conventional fashion, and the “high-end conflicts” are the ones that actually threaten our existence the most. China, the Russian Federation, et. Al. The enemies have NOT gone away and we have become so focused on “insurgents” we can no longer effectively fight a major conflict.
BTW - Iraq and Afghanistan would still be “messy”, but they would and could go smoother IF we stopped using such anemic Rules of Engagement (ROEs). IF we don’t have good reason to kill people and break things, then we don’t have good reason to send in the military. IMO it is either “total” war or no war.
Then there is only ONE CHOICE to accomplish that mission.
Yep, makes perfect sense. We should send troops only to where the most dangerous enemies are: Grenada and Panama.
That'll keep us perfectly safe.
How are they less messy than the wars in Korea or Vietnam? If anything, they are easier to fight: there is no Soviet Union to worry about, and Russia even gives us overflight rights.
Why can't this moron just keep silence --- does he not he understand that such remarks embolden the enemy? When the Secretary of Defense tells the world we won't fight, what do you expect the enemies will do --- put down the guns and sip coffee?
How many administrations has he worked for?
Dateline: Washington, D.C., February 28, 1932.
The outgoing Secretary of War told the press today:
There has been an overwhelming tendency of our defense bureaucracy to focus on preparing for future high-end conflicts priorities often based, ironically, on what transpired 15 years ago in World War One as opposed to the messy fights in Nicaragua and other Latin American countries that we are involved in right now.
Dateline: San Francisco, December 8, 1941.
To believe that China will never pose a threat to the U.S. during the rest of the 21st Century because "the Cold War is over" is naive and dangerous to the extreme.
Japan was on the Allied side in World War One. Japanese warships, based out of the British Royal Navy base at Malta, even assisted the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean. Yet, when Japan's growing thirst for oil came into conflict with Western interests, Japan turned from "friend" to "enemy" in a very short period of time.
If you are unprepared for insurgent warfare in Iraq or Afghanistan, you lose a few thousand troops.
If you are unprepared for war war against China in the year 2039, you lose hundreds of thousands of troops and the United States of America.
Or some small island - if they're not too violent.
“That leaves just Europe and South America..................”
Don’t forget Antarctica! And most omenously.....North America!!! MEXICO!!
That leaves just Europe and South America
And Wisconson or Kalifornia.
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.