Should the US Rethink Large-Scale Military Interventions Abroad?

[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?