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