Posted on 09/01/2011 5:43:07 PM PDT by AfricanChristian
U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, speaking at West Point, said last week that “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.” In saying this, Gates was repeating a dictum laid down by Douglas MacArthur after the Korean War, who urged the United States to avoid land wars in Asia. Given that the United States has fought four major land wars in Asia since World War II — Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq — none of which had ideal outcomes, it is useful to ask three questions: First, why is fighting a land war in Asia a bad idea? Second, why does the United States seem compelled to fight these wars? And third, what is the alternative that protects U.S. interests in Asia without large-scale military land wars?
The Hindrances of Overseas Wars
Let’s begin with the first question, the answer to which is rooted in demographics and space. The population of Iraq is currently about 32 million. Afghanistan has a population of less than 30 million. The U.S. military, all told, consists of about 1.5 million active-duty personnel (plus 980,000 in the reserves), of whom more than 550,000 belong to the Army and about 200,000 are part of the Marine Corps. Given this, it is important to note that the United States strains to deploy about 200,000 troops at any one time in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that many of these troops are in support rather than combat roles. The same was true in Vietnam, where the United States was challenged to field a maximum of about 550,000 troops (in a country much more populous than Iraq or Afghanistan) despite conscription and a larger standing army.
(Excerpt) Read more at stratfor.com ...
I'm not sure I believe that. Being able to field larger armies does not mean your history is longer or more savage.
Even in the Middle East, Iran wouldn't do it, but maybe some mad Arab state might. Pakistan might
Against the Islamics only nooks are the only way.
most Americans wouldn't be there -- I'm sure most of us have Irish or Italian or Polish or Russian or Eastern European Jewish or Dutch or German roots.
In the era 4000 BC to 2000 BC, the big states were Egypt, Sumeria, Akkadia, Mohenjo-daro and the Sung kingdom. The first 4 were in constant contact with each other and had trade with each other
2000 BC to 600 BC, you have the rise of stronger states and Empires like the Egyptian, Hittite and finally neo-Assyrian.
600 BC to 100 AD you have the rise of successive Empires that give birth to each other somewhat: the Persian, Macedonian, Diodeci, Roman, Carthaginian and the Magadhan, Guptan etc.
His mistake is assuming the ‘call to fight’ in these areas, or any area for that matter does not include the option to nuke the b!tches till they need 50,000 sun block.
I’d like to keep the Polish and Jewish folks here, too. The rest may go. ;-)
oh, I’m not Polish, but the wife is :)
Then you are blessed. I foolishly let a Polish-American one go (intimidated by her father being an instructor at the university) and married one of southern Italian descent instead. After a year or two, it was like being in the middle of The Spectacle for a time. I worked as much as possible and volunteered for extra National Guard duties, until she finally flew away in the night. ;-)
yes, I am blessed — we met in Church too :)
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.