Gates warns against further ground wars

but Vietnam never had Oil, or Israel...I am guessing we will not learn. Just wait for the next Republican President with some power in the house or senate...and a excuse.

 

His statement was ridiculous. The U.S. should get into or not get into wars, whether land, naval, space, on this or that continent based upon the specific arguments in each case. To make such categorical statements goes beyond indicating that like most of obozo's flunkies he is incompetent for his job, to the level of illogic.

 

His advice is idiotic. The nature of particular wars should be fought based on the conditions surrounding those wars... not some arbitrary notion that "a ground war went poorly before, so stay away from those."

 

Gates got his Job Under Bush...funny how he is a Obama flunkie?

He was placed as Head of the CIA by Bush H W...

Somehow I think as being in charge of 2 wars in the middle east...he has a better idea then you on the merits of a land war in the region.

Also since he was useing the words of Gen MacArthur...I am guessing he was a Obama man as well?

 

Past experience, no matter how vast, does not make one capable of predicting the future.

 

You think it's funny that a RINO can slide easily into a leftwing administration? Not general relativity difficult to understand.

Yeah, and look how good he's doing with this one - we're losing.

MacArthur never said that.

 

Rick, et al,

This may sound very profound and logical; but (IMHO), it is dead wrong.

(DISSENTING OPINION)

"Rick" makes a very excellent case. It would be sound and valid if, and only if, the following was always TRUE:

• That we would "win" every "war" from a military standpoint.
• That a "military win" equates to "victory."
• That the war does not do substantial harm to the economic growth of the nation.
• That the cost of the war (both blood and treasure) is acceptable relative to the return on the investment; the benefits of going to war must be greater than the cost (both blood and treasure).

Military victories do not always mean that the US arrived at the proper outcomes. When I was sent to Vietnam, we won every battle. By the end of the conflict, we won 99% of all engagements. We had total control of the air and we could go anywhere we wanted on the ground. No one could defeat us. Yet the political outcome was much, much less than expected.

In Iraq, even if we set aside the argument about the justification and just assume our "will" was right (no question); again, we won every significant engagement. But as we see today, a military win does not equate to a victorious outcome.

Our military is totally compromised.

• Everyone has seen every conventional weapons system we have; they know how it works, what its vulnerabilities are, and what limitations they have.
• Everyone has seen our C4ISR and how are OPCENs works. They understand how we work through a discision model, and how the politics fits into to the equation. They have seen us from the inside-out. They know our dependencies and weaknesses. They know what happens is SIPR goes down.

There ar no SECRETs to the way we operate, our logistics times, our air capabilities, our intelligence systems. The've seen it all; down to how our leadership thinks (Power Point Rangers). And none of this is going to change anytime soon. That is because we've spent our money at the expense of the homeland infrastructure. Our economy can't really afford to refit an Armed Force that is "Persuasive in Peace - & - Invincible in War." We are broke; and everyone knows how to defeat a conventional US military force.

And after 4000+ KIA, 30,000+ WIA, and $750B+ in treasure, we have a Prime Minister of Iraq that was put in power, via Iran (of Axis of Evil Fame), through the use of an anit-America Cleric who fire over 200 rockets at the American Embassy during his Easter 2008 campaign, and has an outstanding murder warrant open on him.

NOTE: When I left Vietnam, I drove in an open jeep, from East DaNang (Marble Mountain) through Da Nang, to the AB to leave (Flying Tiger). When I left Baghdad, I had to dawn Kevlar vest and helmet, board a Rhino, and go by armed convoy to get the 8 miles to BIAP, to leave by military transport (C-130). I was safer in DaNang than Baghdad.​

There is not going to be a return on the investment for the US. We will be paying the cost of this engagement for decades to come; and we still are fussing with the loser in Kabul.

There is simply no way that the US, with the current leadership model, with clones in the pipeline for the next 30 years, should even consider another land warfare action. We just don't have the caliber of leadership, politicl or military, to work us though it. Before we can consider it, our nation must go through a period of economic and infrastructure reconstruction - industrialization and political enlightenment. Then --- and only then --- should we even consider the possibility of military entaglements OCONUS.

Gates is probably right, given that time heals all, for most nations. But the US is in decline, and it is unlikely, given that the Washington DC Leadership (in this historical period) does not reinvest in America; for its people, economy or industry.

Just one man's opinion,
Most Respectfully,
R

 

Well I can agree that the leadership in DC is lacking. It is lacking because DF liberals are in control. Gates is a fool like most of BO's secretaries. Incompetence or worse is everywhere in this administration.

This is an historic period in our history. For the first time, much of political leadership intends to weaken America not strengthen it.

 

So according to Gates if North Korea attacked us on our own shores we should not engage in that war?

We would win it. We would suffer less casualties than if we did not fight back. They are evil and it would be just to end the government of that country. And they would have started it. In short, it would be a just war.

Maybe Gates thinks the possibility of them attacking us is so remote as to not even warrant consideration in making his statement. If so then he is ignoring their statement that they want to attack us and that as a nuclear country with a crazy leader they just might think they could pull it off.

 

Clearly what you state is outside the scope of what he said.

You are using a "straw man" argument.
Nevertheless, North Korea may or may not attack us, but it is quite ludicrous to suggest N.K. troop landing barges beaching along the California coast. If anything, they would have to employ long range missiles. And, in that scenario, it would not have to be, or even likely, an "American land army", response. It would be more likely be a Nuclear submarine missile reprisal.

 

Which is precisely why it is moronic to speak with certainty about what futures wars will look like, and how they should be fought.

 

His point was not about what future wars would look like or how they should be fought. His statement was about not getting involved in foreign land wars; not fighting them.

 

All the above is subsumed under the arguments for or against involvement, as I said.

Not to nitpick, but I wouldn't call Khe Sahn a victory.

It's very revealing that you speak of "engagements". TACTICALLY, the prosecution of the war was generally excellent. STRATEGICALLY, it was a bust. McNamara et al used disastrous STRATEGIC concepts, such as "gradual escalation", an overturning of all previous historical military doctrine. Further, HUGE strategic mistakes were made in not blockading Haiphong early in the war and interdicting supply routes from china and other bordering countries. Vietnam was the first war run by people who were essentially civilians, civilians who thought they knew better than generals how to run a war, and their results are in the history books. To quote only TACTICAL successes, while ignoring the civilian-engineered STRATEGIC failures, and thereby conclude that the war was inherently unwinnable miltarily is unsupportable.

How do we see that? WE got rid of the loose cannon of the middle east, saddam hussein, destroyed at least the iraqi branch of the baath party, and created the second democracy in the middle east and the first arab one. Who knows - that may have been one of the triggers for all the overturning of dictators there happening right now.

That happens in EVERY war, so it is illogical to use it as an argument against a particular war.

Nonsense - he was elected in a free and fair election.