News Should the US Rethink Large-Scale Military Interventions Abroad?

[nismaratwork]

Prove that I'm not only interested "in the echo of my own views?" Now you've lost me. You seem to have a problem with a person disagreeing with your POV. A person disagreeing with you doesn't mean they are only interested in their own way of seeing something.

That's patently untrue, and something I can prove through my postingh history. Disagreemet based purely on ideology isn't just that, it's propoganda.

It can take time to determine whether certain wars have been won or lost.

That must be why I kept mentioning history! Gosh!

Yeah... time's passed, we lost. In the end it's a bunch of civilians who are toppling the regimes we've armed and funded buying their oil. So... you tell me where we won; respond substantively to the points raised by Gokul, and more than just rhetoric with ThomasT. Until then, you just appear to be selling something that only a fool would buy.

 

[nismaratwork]

I would disagree a propaganda campaign was demonstrated, what was demonstrated was that a lot of the information presented on why Iraq was a threat turned out not to be true. There's a difference.



The U.S. government has supported oppressive regimes when it was the lesser of the available evils. If you have the choice between a liberal democracy (and when I say "liberal" democracy, I don't mean the modern American definition of liberal that means a leftwing mindset, I mean the term liberal as in respecting human rights, freedoms, etc...) being established or an oppressive regime, you go for the liberal democracy.

What too many people don't realize is that democracy itself is not a panacea. Democracy is a necessary component for freedom, but in and of itself, will not result in freedom. Democracy in its pure form is just two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. What you can end up with in these Middle Eastern nations is a democracy that votes into power an incredibly oppressive (to women and anyone who disagrees with it), incredibly anti-Western government.

Germany voting in Adolf Hitler and then voting to give him dictatorial powers is one of the most infamous examples of this (albeit in Europe).

Establishing a liberal democratic government is a tough thing to do, and oftentimes as a result, you end up having to support a dictator who is friendly to you. This may mean overturning a democratically-elected government in the process, but only if said democratically-elected government would be worse than the dictator.

Mubarak was an example of such a regime. The fear was his being thrown out of power could result in the Egyptians putting into power a very oppressive, extremist government. He was a dictator, but he was not the kind of dictator Hussein was or Ghadaffi is/was.



How is the U.S. a substantial threat to Iraq's sovereignty?

We. Invaded. Them. You cannot be serious.

 

[CAC1001]

That's patently untrue, and something I can prove through my postingh history. Disagreemet based purely on ideology isn't just that, it's propoganda.

My disagreeing with you and others on things doesn't mean I only am interested in my own views.

So... you tell me where we won;

I never said we won. I said I do not view it as a loss either and think it will take more time to tell.

respond substantively to the points raised by Gokul,

I did. Gokul doesn't think it was a success at all because of the cost involved in what was accomplished. I said I disagree in that even though it cost far more than was estimated, I don't judge whether it was a success or not solely by that.

We. Invaded. Them. You cannot be serious.

I was primarily responding to ThomasT's quote:

"The US government has and will, it seems, continue to support oppressive regimes whenever it's deemed 'in the national interest' to do so."

 

[BobG]

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.

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.



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 United States does choose what kind of situations it's capable of responding to. From the end of the cold war to 2000, troop strength was cut from over 2 million to 1.4 million. A lack of troops hampered initial post-war planning in 2003. Our response to that problem is a troop strength of ... about 1.4 million 8 years later.

You need to put Gates' comments in perspective. We've been fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan for nearly a decade and the decision of the US has been that it was a mistake, not that the US needs to increase its capabilities. If the nation isn't going to increase its capabilities, then the lesson learned is never voluntarily make this type of commitment again.

 

[nismaratwork]

The United States does choose what kind of situations it's capable of responding to. From the end of the cold war to 2000, troop strength was cut from over 2 million to 1.4 million. A lack of troops hampered initial post-war planning in 2003. Our response to that problem is a troop strength of ... about 1.4 million 8 years later.

You need to put Gates' comments in perspective. We've been fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan for nearly a decade and the decision of the US has been that it was a mistake, not that the US needs to increase its capabilities. If the nation isn't going to increase its capabilities, then the lesson learned is never voluntarily make this type of commitment again.

bolding mine: Now if only we didn't need to re-learn this lesson every decade or so. What ever did happen to the "Powell Doctrine"?... sheesh.

 

[CAC1001]

I have read somewhere that it was actually stated by the generals that the minimum troop number to properly invade Iraq would be about half a million troops (500,000).

 

[BobG]

I have read somewhere that it was actually stated by the generals that the minimum troop number to properly invade Iraq would be about half a million troops (500,000).

Maybe by retired generals. The first Gulf War used a little over 500,000 troops, but only for a short time, so that would certainly be a reasonable number to toss out there by someone not in on the details of the planning.

Active duty generals usually don't voluntarily put out info that conflicts with the commander in chief. The closest would be Army Chief of Staff Shinsecki's pre-war testimony before the Senate's Armed Forces Committee in which he said several hundred thousand would be needed. At least he avoided the coldness of a specific number even though his testimony clearly conflicted with the administration's public estimates (around 150,000 during the invasion and 50,000 post-invasion).

 

[talk2glenn]

We've been repeatedly and sometimes painfully reminded that it's a mistake to take the proclamations of politicians as evidence of the truth.

Indeed! Clearly, the wiser course is to take the anonmyous musings of random personalities on an internet forum as truth.

Given the option of entertaining an endless parade of conspiracy theorists, each with their own opinion about "what's really going on" (and each absolutely convinced of their own topical omniscience), and the option of simply taking the intents and purposes of national governments at face value (whether we agree with them or not), I choose the latter.

The invasion of Iraq was a preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that posed no threat to the US. The Bush administration's desire to invade Iraq no matter what and the propaganda campaign leading up to the invasion have been well enough demonstated.

Laugh. Out. Loud. What, one wonders, is the point of this? The thread has long since derailed from a discussion of what the mission and capabilities of the Army ought to be, to the politics of war. I have zero interest in entering such a discussion, because is it pointless - there are no right or wrong answers. You've got an opinion; that opinion is weak, in my humble opinion, but I can't change it and you can't change mine. Moving on.

The position of the Bush administration and its entire national security and intelligence apparetus - with a combined budget of perhaps a trillion dollars per year, give or take - was that Iraq was a threat, and that is government was in violation of the cease fire signed in '91 and ending hostilties; therefore it had to go to war. You might disagree, and you might somehow be more right than said $1T security and intelligence establishment, but I doubt it. Even if so, and the Iraq war was a waste of time and money, what does this have to do with Gates' position?

Is it true that because the Iraq war wasn't necesarry, that all large scale ground warfare operations are unnecesarry (to put that another way, is it your opinion that because Iraq wasn't necesarry, there can't and won't ever be an Iraq-like war that is necesarry)? If not, then is it true that a heavier Army - equipped and oriented for missions of invasion and occupation, as has classically been its mission - is better than a "lighter, smaller" Army with a focus on counter-insurgency, disaster reflief, and conflict intervention (the European model)? I'd say experience says "yes".

Fact: war's happen. Fact: those wars are of a scale and location generally unaticipatable and unchoosable by the participants. Given those facts, I think Gates' policy advice is reckless at best, dangerous at worst.

Didn't Iraq have these before the invasion?

What, exactly does the presence or absence of these characteristics in a country pre-occupation tell us about the relative success or failure of that occupation? This is silly. An occupation whose stated goal was the establishment of a sovereign state with functional democratic institutions, and a capable national defense that was non-threatening to its neighbors and the interests of the United States has accomplished the same. By my understanding of the meaning of the word "success", if follows (war politics aside) that the Iraq reconstruction effort was successful on its own merits.

Cost/benefit analysis is an altogether different argument from success/failure, and one I also have no interest in having, because none of us have anywhere near sufficient data or ability to accurately make that kind of assessment. You have no clue how to regress a reliable cost estimate for the Iraq war, and I have no clue how to regress a reliable benefit estimate. Frankly, its over our heads. You'd have to be able to value things like "regional stability", "national security", etcetera. I have no doubt that policy advisers exist who can create these kinds of metrics, but they aren't here, and there work wherever they are is ongoing - it is way to soon to really say what benefits the region and this country will derive from Saddam's ouster and the establishment of a moderate democracy (by Middle East standards) in Iraq.

 

[nismaratwork]

Wow Glenn, if you don't care to listen and discuss matters online... leave. I can assure you that you'll be missed, but we'll move on in time... in time.

Beyond that, you missed ThomasT's point: you're making a fallacious appeal to authority, and then setting those who disagree with you as straw men.

Fact: We choose Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq II; I'll take the musings of gates over your "personality" as far as that goes. Nothing else you've said merits a response.

 

[BobG]

- it is way to soon to really say what benefits the region and this country will derive from Saddam's ouster and the establishment of a moderate democracy (by Middle East standards) in Iraq.

Considering there's a Presidential election in 2012, success will be no military troops at all in Iraq come January 2012 (and no full scale civil war until after November 2012).

Your argument about those in government being so much more qualified than us to know what's best for us has one flaw. The issues that affected our decisions at election time were so far above our heads that we aren't always able to make qualified decisions about who to vote for.

If not, then is it true that a heavier Army - equipped and oriented for missions of invasion and occupation, as has classically been its mission - is better than a "lighter, smaller" Army with a focus on counter-insurgency, disaster reflief, and conflict intervention (the European model)? I'd say experience says "yes".

I'd go so far as to say you're right that our current philosophy of only carrying a smaller, lighter military does carry some serious risks and it does reduce our capabilities. I'm not so sure the risks are unacceptable provided we don't pretend we still have the same military capability we had in 1990.

Well, the risks are acceptable provided something weird in the Middle East doesn't happen, such as every Middle East country erupting into civil war at the same time after deposing their old leaders, but what are the chances of that happening.

 

[WhoWee]

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.

I have a few more:

1.) If a country wants nukes and will do anything to get them - send them a few.
2.) If a country or a group of countries have sworn to kill you - take them serious and eliminate the risk.
3.) If war is inevitable - win it with the fewest casualties possible and while it's win-able.
4.) Protect your friends and keep an eye on your equals.

 

[nismaratwork]

I have a few more:

1.) If a country wants nukes and will do anything to get them - send them a few.

NOW we're back on the same page, assuming you mean "pointy-end" first. :biggrin"

2.) If a country or a group of countries have sworn to kill you - take them serious and eliminate the risk.

I knew I fell in love with you for a reason... ah... "Ah can't quit you."

3.) If war is inevitable - win it with the fewest casualties possible and while it's win-able.

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

Amen.

4.) Protect your friends and keep an eye on your equals.

"Know your place, and you will know the place of those around you." (I don't remember the source anymore, and I'm paraphrasing)

Good idea, I'd add:
1.)When in the presence of your superiors, keep your bung tight; they want in.
2.)Absolute Trust is Absolute Folly. which leads to 4 Kissinger quotes:
"Trust, then verify."
"Any fact that needs to be disclosed should be put out now or as quickly as possible, because otherwise the bleeding will not end." (Henry Kissinger)
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer." (Henry Kissinger)
"While we should never give up our principles, we must also realize that we cannot maintain our principles unless we survive." (Henry Kissinger)


MOST Important:

All people can fall to M.I.C.E.

and

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." (Voltaire)

 

[ThomasT]

Is it true that because the Iraq war wasn't necesarry, that all large scale ground warfare operations are unnecesarry ...

Of course not. But you're framing the question in a silly way (like taking either the claims of conspiracy theorists or the claims of politicians at face value).

... (to put that another way, is it your opinion that because Iraq wasn't necesarry, there can't and won't ever be an Iraq-like war that is necesarry)?

I think that, consistent with Gates's statement, the US should not set out to preemptively invade and massively occupy a sovereign nation that hasn't physically attacked the US based on the justification of perceived threat -- even if one of the various reasons for invading Iraq was to set a recent precedent for doing just that.

Here's the thing. The US is, apparently, currently incapable of maintaining any larger scale ground deployment than the Iraq-Afghanistan peak, or generating a volunteer standing armed force significantly larger than what it currently has. So, given current, and foreseeable, US capabilities, then Gates's statement makes sense.

Is there some reason to believe that the US will, or even could, significantly increase it's ground capabilities in the foreseeable future -- or that this might be necessary?

... is it true that a heavier Army - equipped and oriented for missions of invasion and occupation, as has classically been its mission - is better than a "lighter, smaller" Army with a focus on counter-insurgency, disaster reflief, and conflict intervention (the European model)? I'd say experience says "yes".

And I'd say that experience says "no".

Fact: war's happen. Fact: those wars are of a scale and location generally unaticipatable and unchoosable by the participants.

The first statement is obvious, and the second is obviously absurd.

Given those facts, I think Gates' policy advice is reckless at best, dangerous at worst.

If those statements are what you're basing your opinion on, then it's unfounded.

We can consider whether a US ground deployment on the scale of Iraq or larger might be foreseen, or foreseeable. Where, why, and approximately when might such a deployment be necessary? Will the US need to increase it's capabilities to deal with it? By approximately how much? Will the US need to begin a policy of mandatory military service? Can the US feasibly make the sorts of changes necessary to pursue anything larger than the Iraq-Afghanistan deployments? Etc.

Is it probable that Gates has deeply considered all the available options before coming to his conclusion?