Should the US Rethink Large-Scale Military Interventions Abroad?

[mugaliens]

"“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 here." - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41788477/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times"

About dang time. Thanks for being among the first to have the guts to spit it out.

 

[nismaratwork]

"“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 here." - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41788477/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times"

About dang time. Thanks for being among the first to have the guts to spit it out.

Works for me!... although my favorite is:

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...

I'll be ready for a war in asia when we finish the one in Korea. Seriously, we should look at North Africa and remember that this is the result of EU colonialization... we're no more immune to blowback, so let's minimize it.

 

[BobG]

Given military reductions since the end of the cold war, Gates' comments certainly do make sense. The entire direction of US foreign policy has been to have enough military power to respond to short term crises and rely on international efforts for post crisis stability and clean up. One President can't change that overnight and it was ludicrous of the Bush administration to believe they could change reality based on nothing more than desires, ideology, or God's will.

In survival terms, the Bush administration was guilty of bending the map. Bending the map, imagining the landmarks around you match your desired location on the map (that huge rock must have finally rolled away, that stream must have dried up, etc), is how even experienced people wind up getting lost in the wilderness.

Any cabinet officer, including the Secretary of Defense, owes it to a President and to the American people to be honest in their advice to the President. Disregarding the estimates of military generals (Gen Shinsecki's estimates on the troop strength necessary for Iraq) usually doesn't qualify as honest advice.

Interesting to look back on independent http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/AAAS_War_Iraq_2.pdf .

Disregarding the impact to oil prices, the estimated costs (table 7, page 31, of estimated cost) were about $156 billion (everything goes well) to $755 billion (things go poorly) for the first decade of an effort that could be expected to take 20 years or more. Cost estimates, including this one, are notoriously low for all wars.

The http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/2_whitehouse.html (supplied by then OMB director Mitch Daniels) was $50 billion to $60 billion; an estimate revised downward from the $100 billion to $200 billion estimate provided by chief economic advisor Lawrence Lindsey earlier that year (an estimate that was in line with the most optimistic independent estimates).

Actual cost (disregarding oil prices) has been about $802 billion for the first 9 years (table 1, page 7, of actual cost).

I'd note that the estimates for oil prices in the Nordhaus estimate were ridiculously low, but that oil prices were affected by much more than just the Iraq war.

 

[talk2glenn]

"“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 here." - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41788477/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times"

About dang time. Thanks for being among the first to have the guts to spit it out.

Inane. I've always more or less liked Gates, but this is the kind of statement people make fun of later.

The United States does not choose the size and place of its wars. Before 9/11, Rumsfeld announced the end of big conventional wars. So did the Clinton admin after the end of the Cold War and the Bush admin after the success of '91.

All foolish. Assumes we have any say in the matter, which almost by definition is not the case when going to war.

 

[nismaratwork]

Inane. I've always more or less liked Gates, but this is the kind of statement people make fun of later.

The United States does not choose the size and place of its wars. Before 9/11, Rumsfeld announced the end of big conventional wars. So did the Clinton admin after the end of the Cold War and the Bush admin after the success of '91.

All foolish. Assumes we have any say in the matter, which almost by definition is not the case when going to war.

We always have a choice, including the paralysis of not making an active choice. I think you need to study military history in more depth than this recent post-cold war era.

 

[talk2glenn]

Errr... what? You've succeeded in being patronizing, but failed at saying anything useful.

As to "choice", if you can find me a single instance in the modern era (say, 1800 onwards) of a western country believing - as evidenced by the proclamations of its leaders and/or government - it chose to go to war rather than being forced to it after the exhaustion of "diplomacy by all other means", I'll concede the point. Save yourself the bother, though; you won't. My "study" of military history is sufficient to the purpose, thank you very much.

As to the "paralysis of not making a choice", if you're suggesting that the United States could respond to another 9/11 or another Gulf War or another Korean War by doing nothing, haha. Not in this universe. Even the British - an emaciated post-colonial power with barely a blue water navy and even less of an army - responded to an attack on a virtually unoccupied island with basically 0 contribution to GNP aggressively and with an invasion, and we are a far cry from Britain.

As long as the US remains an internationally interesting state player, nobody - Gates included - can declare an end to conventional war and expect to be historically vindicated. All of human history preceding suggests otherwise. Indeed, if anything the lesson is that a reduction in a stabilizing states' conventional military capacity makes war more likely, not less. See post-WW1 Europe, post-WW2 and decolonization, and post-Cold War and the end of the Soviet Era.

 

[nismaratwork]

Errr... what? You've succeeded in being patronizing, but failed at saying anything useful.

As to "choice", if you can find me a single instance in the modern era (say, 1800 onwards) of a western country believing - as evidenced by the proclamations of its leaders and/or government - it chose to go to war rather than being forced to it after the exhaustion of "diplomacy by all other means", I'll concede the point. Save yourself the bother, though; you won't. My "study" of military history is sufficient to the purpose, thank you very much.

So, you're familiar with our stance on WWI, and WWII, until our interests were directly threatened, or our homeland attacked. Another fine example would be Iraq, and frankly I'm a little surprised that you think your's is a tenable position. It's unfortunate that you feel patronized, but I can do nothing about how you choose to take what I've said.

As to the "paralysis of not making a choice", if you're suggesting that the United States could respond to another 9/11 or another Gulf War or another Korean War by doing nothing, haha. Not in this universe. Even the British - an emaciated post-colonial power with barely a blue water navy and even less of an army - responded to an attack on a virtually unoccupied island with basically 0 contribution to GNP aggressively and with an invasion, and we are a far cry from Britain.

Wow... what are you talking about? You think the only options that are violent are invasion? I don't believe your claim of historic knowledge; you're demonstrating a lack of just that. I'm not impressed by bluster and patriotic jingoism, I'm impressed by history. WWI, btw, was what I was thinking about, and Europe's appeasement of Hitler in WWII.

As long as the US remains an internationally interesting state player, nobody - Gates included - can declare an end to conventional war and expect to be historically vindicated.

True, but he didn't say that; only that sending a "big army" into specific regions with a rich history of kicking our (West's) butt back out again is unwise. Somalia springs to mind...
...anyway, if you want to change this into your own personal argument and response, that's fine, but do realize that everyone is able to read the totality of the thread.

All of human history preceding suggests otherwise. Indeed, if anything the lesson is that a reduction in a stabilizing states' conventional military capacity makes war more likely, not less. See post-WW1 Europe, post-WW2 and decolonization, and post-Cold War and the end of the Soviet Era.

Uh huh... see previous.

 

[lisab]

"“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 here." - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41788477/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times"

About dang time. Thanks for being among the first to have the guts to spit it out.

I've had the sense that Americans are simply sick and tired of sending troops anywhere to settle conflicts -- even if there are American interests involved. I should add, this isn't based on anyone thing in particular. Rather, it's based on my reading opinion pieces, editorials, talking to friends, etc. This feels like a new American Zeitgeist...we don't want to get involved.

I was listening to a Libyan being interviewed on NPR the other day. He said, "We need help - we need the US to help us." I thought, I'm so sorry, buddy, but that's not going to happen...you have our sympathy, but there is *no* public support to send our troops anywhere, as far as I can tell. We're tapped out.

 

[nismaratwork]

I've had the sense that Americans are simply sick and tired of sending troops anywhere to settle conflicts -- even if there are American interests involved. I should add, this isn't based on anyone thing in particular. Rather, it's based on my reading opinion pieces, editorials, talking to friends, etc. This feels like a new American Zeitgeist...we don't want to get involved.

I was listening to a Libyan being interviewed on NPR the other day. He said, "We need help - we need the US to help us." I thought, I'm so sorry, buddy, but that's not going to happen...you have our sympathy, but there is *no* public support to send our troops anywhere, as far as I can tell. We're tapped out.

True... and now we get to see just how ineffective and venal the EU is... just like US. *pun*

 

[Containment]

Well now that "we've" made it clear that we won't try to stop them I guess it would be a good time for Russia or China to do their thing... What a stupid thing for a military leader to say imo. I guess it's slightly better then saying we are going to invade if only by a little.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well now that "we've" made it clear that we won't try to stop them I guess it would be a good time for Russia or China to do their thing... What a stupid thing for a military leader to say imo. I guess it's slightly better then saying we are going to invade if only by a little.

1.) China doesn't have the naval assets.
2.) You think other nations aren't aware of our position?
3.) What the hell kind of war are you looking to see happen, because if you think the world stands by while Russia, China, OR the USA appears to annex Libya, you're mistaken.

This is up to the EU parties who've kept this monster in power, and tore Africa apart to begin with... I'm looking at Italy... again.

edit: Much as Saddam was our monster to kill... although invasion was foolish.

 

[Containment]

Do you know what china has for naval assets?

Isn't it one thing to have a weak position and another to broadcast it? Not that I even think we have a weak position in all honesty and that probably only makes it worse.

I'm not hoping to see any war happen and I think just the opposite that saying stuff like we are weak and won't defend is more likely to give them ideas... Obviously we wouldn't just stand by and so I guess what the guy said won't have much effect in the long run. However I still think it's stupid to say that we aren't going to engage if needed.

 

[nismaratwork]

Do you know what china has for naval assets?

Yes, and so can you... it's hardly a secret... more like an advertisement. A couple of new carriers on the way, what!

Isn't it one thing to have a weak position and another to broadcast it? Not that I even think we have a weak position in all honesty and that probably only makes it worse.

I think no massive forces in proven death-traps isn't weakness, it's wisdom.

I'm not hoping to see any war happen and I think just the opposite that saying stuff like we are weak and won't defend is more likely to give them ideas... Obviously we wouldn't just stand by and so I guess what the guy said won't have much effect in the long run. However I still think it's stupid to say that we aren't going to engage if needed.

I understand your position, but respectfully disagree.

 

[Containment]

Ok I'm having problems understanding what you disagree with exactly? My point is that I think it's stupid to make the statement to your possible enemy's that you won't defend your self. So what about that do you not agree with?

 

[nismaratwork]

Ok I'm having problems understanding what you disagree with exactly? My point is that I think it's stupid to make the statement to your possible enemy's that you won't defend your self. So what about that do you not agree with?

We're not saying that we won't defend ourselves, and we're not saying that we wouldn't annihilate an enemy. The statement was specific to large armies deployed in specific regions as poor strategic and tactical doctrine.

 

[Containment]

Oh well I really don't think it's a big deal he's going to be leaving soon anyhow and who knows what the guy after him will say about the issue.

 

[nismaratwork]

Oh well I really don't think it's a big deal he's going to be leaving soon anyhow and who knows what the guy after him will say about the issue.

You mean Gates?... Frankly I think it's a pity that the voices of reason are margenalized... Colin Powell, Gates, etc...

 

[Astronuc]

I think Gates makes sense -

http://restrepothemovie.com/

http://www.bobedwardsradio.com/blog/2011/2/26/restrepo.html

Journalists Sebastian Junger and Tim Hetherington spent about a year in Afghanistan with the Second Platoon, B Company, 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment of the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team. They wrote articles for Vanity Fair about what they saw and produced a documentary called Restrepo. Both the film and the remote outpost the troops were defending were named for PFC Juan Restrepo, the platoon medic who was killed early in their tour of duty. Junger and Hetherington made ten separate trips of about a month each to the Korengal Valley, one of the most deadly pieces of terrain in Afghanistan.

 

[CAC1001]

True, but he didn't say that; only that sending a "big army" into specific regions with a rich history of kicking our (West's) butt back out again is unwise. Somalia springs to mind...

Somalia I'd say was a result of ***not*** having the "big army" present. President Clinton had appointed Les Aspin to be Secretary of Defense, who would not allow the Army to take the Abrams tanks and C-130 gunships into Somalia. This resulted in the Army not having the firepower and protection it needed, resulting in the "Blackhawk Down" incident in Mogadishu. The Somalis also built makeshift barricades to block off the roads so that the soldiers couldn't drive down them; tanks could have driven through the barricades easily.

 

[nismaratwork]

Somalia I'd say was a result of ***not*** having the "big army" present. President Clinton had appointed Les Aspin to be Secretary of Defense, who would not allow the Army to take the Abrams tanks and C-130 gunships into Somalia. This resulted in the Army not having the firepower and protection it needed, resulting in the "Blackhawk Down" incident in Mogadishu. The Somalis also built makeshift barricades to block off the roads so that the soldiers couldn't drive down them; tanks could have driven through the barricades easily.

Yeah, we could have annexed it, but why? It's folly to interfere in a civil war, and now you have Lieberman and McCain calling for weapons to be shipped?! You'd almost think they've forgotten "BLOWBACK". Have we EVER armed a people who didn't then use those arms in a truly unforunate way?

 

[CAC1001]

1.) China doesn't have the naval assets.
2.) You think other nations aren't aware of our position?
3.) What the hell kind of war are you looking to see happen, because if you think the world stands by while Russia, China, OR the USA appears to annex Libya, you're mistaken.

I think the world (aside from the USA) would stand by if Russia or China started engaging in any such actions. What are they going to do? Europe has no military capability to do anything. The only nation outside of the USA with any capability to project power is the UK, and they are too small by themselves.

THAT SAID, I agree, China doesn't have the naval capability to do anything involving power projection right now. And Russia, militarily, is pretty powerless too.

 

[CAC1001]

Yeah, we could have annexed it, but why? It's folly to interfere in a civil war, and now you have Lieberman and McCain calling for weapons to be shipped?! You'd almost think they've forgotten "BLOWBACK". Have we EVER armed a people who didn't then use those arms in a truly unforunate way?

I'm not saying we should have annexed anything. You mentioned about areas of the world that have a history of kicking the West's butt, and mentioned Somalia as a specific example. I just wanted to make my point that I think Somalia is an exception to that, that Somalia was not a result of conventional military firepower not working, that it was the result of a lack of conventional military firepower that contributed to that incident.

 

[nismaratwork]

I think the world (aside from the USA) would stand by if Russia or China started engaging in any such actions. What are they going to do? Europe has no military capability to do anything. The only nation outside of the USA with any capability to project power is the UK, and they are too small by themselves.

THAT SAID, I agree, China doesn't have the naval capability to do anything involving power projection right now. And Russia, militarily, is pretty powerless too.

I agree about China, and a couple of weeks ago I'd be on the same page with you on Russia... but WhoWee makes some good points there.

You may be right about nations standing by, but it only takes two major military powers fighting for oil in Africa to start a solid world-war. Remember... nobody wanted WWI, but it "couldn't be avoided". That would be a worst case scenario here of course... I think Russia learned from Afghanistan, and they have their hands full on the home front.

I guess I don't really know enough about the Russian situation to make an educated guess, but China... not a chance; they'd be circling Taiwan before Tripoli.

 

[CAC1001]

“As the prospects for another head-on clash of large mechanized land armies seem less likely, the Army will be increasingly challenged to justify the number, size, and cost of its heavy formations,” Mr. Gates warned.

Maybe, but I'd say reducing them too much could be dangerous as well. The military as is, is small in comparison to its Cold War days. I don't think its wise to declare such wars will never occur again or that such weapons systems are not going to be needed again. An infamous example of that was when they decided that the fighter planes no longer needed machine guns, because planes in modern warfare supposedly didn't do dogfighting anymore. Big mistake that turned out to be.

During the 1990s, there was a lot of talk about how the Army would become less heavy, and less armored, to make it more mobile and that the idea was technology and speed could make up for the lack of armor (this was the idea behind the Army's Future Combat Systems program). Then Iraq gets invaded and it turns out this whole mindset was wrongheaded as the Army was too lightly armored. Everything, the Humvees, cargo trucks, etc...needed armor (the idea is for the replacement vehicles is to have the armor built into them). In some areas the only vehicles with enough armor to drive through were tanks.

Now one could say, "Well, we never should've invaded Iraq in the first place..." yeah but in the future, no one knows where the Army might have to go. Heavy armor isn't always needed just to counter other heavy armor.

 

[nismaratwork]

Maybe, but I'd say reducing them too much could be dangerous as well. The military as is, is small in comparison to its Cold War days. I don't think its wise to declare such wars will never occur again or that such weapons systems are not going to be needed again. An infamous example of that was when they decided that the fighter planes no longer needed machine guns, because planes in modern warfare supposedly didn't do dogfighting anymore. Big mistake that turned out to be.

During the 1990s, there was a lot of talk about how the Army would become less heavy, and less armored, to make it more mobile and that the idea was technology and speed could make up for the lack of armor (this was the idea behind the Army's Future Combat Systems program). Then Iraq gets invaded and it turns out this whole mindset was wrongheaded as the Army was too lightly armored. Everything, the Humvees, cargo trucks, etc...needed armor (the idea is for the replacement vehicles is to have the armor built into them). In some areas the only vehicles with enough armor to drive through were tanks.

Now one could say, "Well, we never should've invaded Iraq in the first place..." yeah but in the future, no one knows where the Army might have to go. Heavy armor isn't always needed just to counter other heavy armor.

The reality is that we failed in Iraq, and we're failing in Afghanistan. I'd say that he's right, but you're correct as long as political leaders insist on sending troops into be police instead of soldiers.

Rolling Thunder... now that's the way to conduct a war... Shock & Awe?... not impressed. If you're going to war, it should be total, or don't go to war. In an all out conflict, we don't NEED to hold ground. We've tried that, it failed in Vietnam, It's not a great situation in Korea, failed in south and central america, and Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan (twice now). We're still eating the blowback from ALL of that... but what has been REALLY effective?

Hellfire missiles from drones... we need more, and we need to realize that war is about rapid conquest or destruction. Again, a quote I often use:


"In war there can be no substitute for victory, war's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision." (Gen MacArthur re: Korea)

 

[CAC1001]

The reality is that we failed in Iraq, and we're failing in Afghanistan. I'd say that he's right, but you're correct as long as political leaders insist on sending troops into be police instead of soldiers.

How did the U.S. fail in Iraq? While I wouldn't call Iraq a rollicking success, I wouldn't call it a failure either.

Rolling Thunder... now that's the way to conduct a war... Shock & Awe?... not impressed. If you're going to war, it should be total, or don't go to war. In an all out conflict, we don't NEED to hold ground. We've tried that, it failed in Vietnam, It's not a great situation in Korea, failed in south and central america, and Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan (twice now). We're still eating the blowback from ALL of that... but what has been REALLY effective?

Hellfire missiles from drones... we need more, and we need to realize that war is about rapid conquest or destruction. Again, a quote I often use:

"In war there can be no substitute for victory, war's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision." (Gen MacArthur re: Korea)

Well if the objective is to kill everyone maybe, but this kind of warfare wasn't working in Iraq, and probably wouldn't work in Afghanistan. We'd turn all the people there against us and they'd side with the terrorists.

 

[CAC1001]

The NYT only provided part of the speech, and a bit out of context it seems like; here is the full speech: http://www.defense.gov/utility/printitem.aspx?print=http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1539

 

[talk2glenn]

The reality is that we failed in Iraq, and we're failing in Afghanistan.

I'm curious how you'd define success? Iraq has a stable government, a functional self defense force, and no credible, substantial threat to its sovereignty. American combat troops have departed the country, and legacy assets have withdrawn to the countryside in preparation for a complete exit by December 31st.

The reality is we succeeded in Iraq because we stopped pretending a traditional, heavy land Army wasn't a necesarry condition of victory in modern war. It took awhile, but we got there, and the Army today is heavier than it has been since the '80s.

By no means am I suggesting that the U.S. Army will – or should – turn into a Victorian nation-building constabulary – designed to chase guerrillas, build schools, or sip tea.

One hopes, but this has been civilian policy towards the Army since the end of the Cold War - to our great detriment early on in Iraq.

But as the prospects for another head-on clash of large mechanized land armies seem less likely, the Army will be increasingly challenged to justify the number, size, and cost of its heavy formations to those in the leadership of the Pentagon, and on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, who ultimately make policy and set budgets.

Disagree entirely. We have the Marines and Special Operations. Let the Army exist to do what the Army does: large mechanized open field operations for taking and holding ground. We lose sight of that purpose at our own peril - no sooner does some admittedly brilliant but historically foolish SecDef declare an end to "old war" than does the United States find itself involved in just such a conflict. Yeah, I'm looking at you, Mr. Rumsfeld, and now you too, Mr. Gates.

The odds of a clash of large land armies always seems unlikely until it happens. Just ask Georgia (the republic, not the state). Which returns me to my original point: the United States does not choose the size and place of its wars.

The NYT only provided part of the speech, and a bit out of context it seems like

Thanks for the link.

 

[nismaratwork]

How did the U.S. fail in Iraq? While I wouldn't call Iraq a rollicking success, I wouldn't call it a failure either.



Well if the objective is to kill everyone maybe, but this kind of warfare wasn't working in Iraq, and probably wouldn't work in Afghanistan. We'd turn all the people there against us and they'd side with the terrorists.

The objective of war is to win, and you win by demoliishing your enemy. Note the difference between modern "adventures", and true wars. War conducted cleanly is a bad joke, not a war.

As for Iraq, we failed to find WMD, we've failed to recover a large amount of money, we've failed to unite the country, and we're seeing continued violence. We lost a lot of good people, and many more are gravely injured... for what? I call that abject failure. What did we get for the cost we paid?

In war, one side ALWAYS pays a higher price, and if we're going to be mellow about things, then we soothe the world and our conscience at the cost of our soldiers and the mission. IF you aren't willing and able to "kill everyone"... don't go to war. Assasinate, subvert, proxy, diplomacy... not war.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

"“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 here." - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41788477/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times"

About dang time. Thanks for being among the first to have the guts to spit it out.

Thanks mugaliens for sharing, it makes sense.

It seems like some are 'speculating' on WW3...?? To that I can only quote the old man:

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." -- Albert Einstein​

I’m probably too ignorant on U.S. defense policy to make any 'clever' comments... but from a European perspective, here’s my personal little "advices":

• Always make sure you attack the RIGHT country.
  
  
• Always make sure you have the CORRECT information BEFORE starting a new war.
  
  
• Always make sure you have a rigorous plan for when/if you win.
  
  
• Always make sure you have a rigorous plan for when/if you lose.
  
  
• Always make sure you have as many UN allies as possible, BEFORE starting a new war.
  
  
• Never start a new war without complete support from ALL countries in the western world.
  
  
• Even if you win a war – you will lose nevertheless if it 'produces' http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/TrangBang.jpg" . <-- Warning!
  
  
• NEVER go to war if there’s ANY other option.