Posted on 03/25/2007 1:31:29 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Defense Secretary Robert Gates cautioned on Thursday the Army would face problems without emergency funds but insisted U.S. forces could fight a third war despite being stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan.
He painted a mixed picture of the impact Iraq has had on U.S. military readiness at a time when Congress is considering tying a Bush administration request for emergency war funding to a deadline for pulling troops out of the conflict.
Gates had raised concerns about a demand by some Democrats to set a deadline. He declined on Thursday to say what Congress should do or to discuss a threat by President George W. Bush to veto a bill linking funds to a withdrawal timetable.
"It's my responsibility to let everybody involved in the debate know the impact of the timing of the decisions," he said. "I think that that's about as far as I should go."
More than four years into the U.S.-led war in Iraq, the U.S. military shows increasing signs of strain. Top defense officials say the United States would prevail in a third major confrontation, but it would take longer.
Asked how the U.S. military was positioned in the face of commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan to deal with a major confrontation in a third state, Gates said adversaries should not think the United States too weak to fight.
"Our ability to defend the United States despite the heavy commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan remains very strong and every adversary should be aware of that," he said. He did not identify any specific adversaries.
(Excerpt) Read more at today.reuters.com ...
The United States military should be able to wage war against any rival(ing) power (a "big" country). If Iraq and Afghanistan are too much for the military, that is not a good sign.
Hmmm...Could the other adversaries be the Democrats or could he have meant Iran?
Quit splitting hairs, they're both the enemy.
That title alone ought to drive the MOONBATS crazy!!!! LOL!
What an absolute disgrace. That the nation isn't in an uproar about this--"playing politics with our troops' lives"--tells me we are in a nation brainwashed by liberals.
You know, we're on the same page, so I guess I'll cut those split ends off now.
There now... a better hair day.
F**king Reuters again. The action in Afghanistan is hardly a war. It's debatable that even Iraq is. Gates never used the term 'third war'. Not even the questioner did. The phrase was "deal with a major confrontation in a third state,..." Even that is loaded because it implies that the other two actions are 'major'. Reuters is incapable of simply reporting the news without putting a spin on it.
Avacado suggested the title alone would drive the moonbats crazy. I submit that that is the entire purpose of it.
Sure it is. That is my point as well. Reuters is to the left of every other news outlet/agency - more extreme than CNN Int'l, AP - all of them. I hate them passionately!
"I see the amount of emergency funding the administration has asked for has been rounded UP from about $93 billion to $100 billion. Fuzzy math."
it passed the House at $124 BILLION, the extra $31 BILLION is pork offered to dem voters to buy their vote
the price of treason is cheap when you use other peoples money
Remove the (PC) from War so we can defend ourselves.
Not wars, eh? What would make them wars?
Was Vietnam a war? Korea?
The first Gulf ____? (don't want to call it a war unless you agree)
LOL! I think we're all at about the same boiling point with the latest treason committed by the Democrat party.
I was thinking "Blantant warning to the Democrats?" as I read the title. If anyone deserves to be warred upon, it's the rats. I've got the black flag ready.
Classic case of you're being damned no matter what you say.
If the SecDef says that we are stretched thin, the bad guys start trying to figure out how to take advantage of that. If he says that we can fight 4 wars, the dems/libs go ballistic trying to cut the budget for the military.
You have to understand the difference between a war and what we have going on now in the middle east.
If we needed to wipe out Russia and China today, by the end of the day it could be done. Now, we would not worry about troops on the ground or pacifying the population; we would just eliminate the threat... the glass parking lot scenario. Horrifying? Yes, but so were the thousands of sorties that our bombers ran over the cities of Germany. You do what you have to do...if you have the guts.
You also have to understand that the billions that we have spent on technology have actually gone for something with a payback. Take the YF22 Raptor. That one plane can take on 12 enemy planes at a time from outside of their weapons range with a high probability of a kill on each with our first strike. So instead for 4-6 F16's to do that job, 1 plane and 1 pilot does it. While you spent more money on the one plane, you didn't buy and maintain 6 others and 6 pilots and maintenance crews, fuel, parts, hanger space, etc.
10 squadrons of F22's will replace the 23 squadrons of fighters that we maintain today. We could do it with fewer if it weren't for geographic location placement issues.
Our technology is a force multiplier and that effect is accelerating rapidly. You just don't see it in a conflict like Iraq.
I'm 4 miles from a large air force base and surrounded by military personnel. It is a common belief that we have built the last fighters with a seat for the pilot. The "Nintendo pilots-Spec 5's" are the next generation of fighter pilots.
With that change, you just cut the actual cost to field an far faster and deadlier equivalent YF22 in half. Lockheed Martin has already designed an unmanned version of the F35. The pilots that run the Air Force haven't wanted to order any, but they know that it is coming. Economics and superior performance will demand it.
Imagine, if you will, this scenario. We can station (with permission, of course) a few of these planes in every friendly country on the planet with only a few support personnel to keep them ready and secure.
In exchange, we promise quick response for any threat that our hosts may face. We fly the planes from here. (Actually, they may prefer to do it themselves with a far lower cost than a manned force would cost them. This will be a hell of business opportunity.) In any event, with very little money, you can project an unbelievable amount of intimidating force over the whole planet and cut response times from hours to minutes. The host countries cut their defense budgets to a fraction of what they are today and spend the money on their local problems. Everybody wins. This will happen.
This is the technology that I am most familiar with but it is being duplicated in every element of our armed forces. Fewer people, more lethality, faster response.
Iraq and Afghanistan have required people on the ground and that was not in the plans... until recently. So, while we might have some manpower tied up in a police mission, if we need to eliminate the threat of the other two major players (or a threat like Iran) on the planet without regard for civilian casualties, we can do them both... at the same time... and be home for dinner.
That's war.
Same war, third front...
"In exchange, we promise quick response for any threat that our hosts may face. We fly the planes from here. (Actually, they may prefer to do it themselves with a far lower cost than a manned force would cost them. This will be a hell of business opportunity.) In any event, with very little money, you can project an unbelievable amount of intimidating force over the whole planet and cut response times from hours to minutes. The host countries cut their defense budgets to a fraction of what they are today and spend the money on their local problems. Everybody wins. This will happen."
And one Chinese anti-satellite weapons test rendered this entire concept worthless.
The reporter was probably thinking Iran and Cates was thinking New York.
1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations.
Was Vietnam a war? Korea?.
Yes, and yes
The first Gulf ____? (don't want to call it a war unless you agree)
Yes. Afghanistan is not even close. Iraq now, although it doesn't meet the criteria, because of the tremendous investment in military and civilian assets, I'm not going to quibble with calling it a war but in fact it is a foreign power supported insurgency combined with sectarian religious extremist in-fighting. There is also a strong element of gang mafia-style violence such as conducted by Al-Sadr and his thugs under the guise of religion. The main problem now though, is Iran. If they were somehow taken out of the picture it would look much different than it does now.
Exactly. We didn't call the Pacific and European fronts different wars in WWII.
Come again?
Please consider the height of the satellite destroyed by China, and the amount of fuel for maneuvering it had.
Compare that to the number of satellites used for the remote piloting, the heights of their orbits, and their maneuverabillity.
Proof of concept is one thing.
Making it work in combat is another.
Cheers!
It's a stretch, but I would have to agree with Gates.
We already have enough troops on the DMZ and with help of South Koreans we should not have any problems invading the North, although once started we would be dangerously spread too thin. Another proxy war in the ME, that's a different animal.
"Hmmm...Could the other adversaries be the Democrats or could he have meant Iran?"
Iran does not pose any threat to us. If you meant Iran because of the current spat with the Brits, I doubt a war should, or will be started for this incident.
I think the Secretary meant N. Korea.
As our nation's demographic and culture is further diluted through illegal and legal 3rd world immigrants, it becomes much easier to control the peons.
Don't forget also the grip of fear the country is in as another way our young children are convinced to go fight global proxy wars. The neocons think of themselves as the New Jacobins and, hence, morally superior.
God help our country!
After we resume the draft and conscript young men we could provide the manpower. I wonder if we could handle it financially, especially since much of what we purchase will be from foreigners.
"If Iraq and Afghanistan are too much for the military, that is not a good sign."
No country would be too much for our military if we threw out the BS ROE our boys have to follow which pretty much give the enemy all the aces.
You took the words right out of my mouth.
Afghanistan is not even close. . . . . Iraq now, blah, blah, blah, criteria, criteria, blah, blah, . . . I'm not going to quibble with calling it a war but in fact it is a foreign power supported insurgency combined with sectarian religious extremist in-fighting.
Men, you're not fighting a war. You're fighting a . . . oh, crap, where'd I put my textbook?
Nevermind, men, I have to get back to my keyboard.
What are our Navy and Air Force doing right now anyway? Iran would be an air war.
Exactly. DOD has shifted radically from our posture following WWII where the US was expected to simultaneously fight and win two wars and a major regional conflict.
Our posture is shifting to being extremely fast, mean, and lethal but without the mass. As explained by the then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard B. Myers, in the National Military Strategy;
"The NDS (National Defense Strategy) directs a force sized to defend the homeland, deter forward in and from four regions, and conduct two, overlapping “swift defeat” campaigns. Even when committed to a limited number of lesser contingencies, the force must be able to “win decisively” in one of the two campaigns. This “1-4-2-1” force-sizing construct places a premium on increasingly innovative and efficient methods to achieve objectives."
Notice, no mention of "wars", only decisively winning in one of two simultaneous campaigns.
Bottom line is that our armed forces are superbly professional but small...just like they have been between every war. But future general wars will be "come as you are". If we do not have the force structure for a "war" things will be bleak.
Great post!
"Iran does not pose any threat to us."
I'll have to disagree with you on that.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=iran
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=ahmadinejad
"I think the Secretary meant N. Korea."
I agree with you that North Korea is definitely a concern.
In exchange, we promise quick response for any threat that our hosts may face. We fly the planes from here. (Actually, they may prefer to do it themselves with a far lower cost than a manned force would cost them. This will be a hell of business opportunity.)
US Mercenary AeroSpace Force has a nice ring to it.
So have a specially configured 757 with a bunch of embedded consoles and comm equipment for LOS tramissions.
Reminds me of grade school - about the same level of articulation. Hey, if you didn't want a response, why ask me the question?
Reading my post again, there is nothing in there that remotely denigrates or trivializes the action of military personnel just because they are not in a war. However, it seems like that is your position: "Men, you're not fighting a war. You're fighting a . . . oh, crap, where'd I put my textbook?" Do you think if you don't call it war, it less important? It seems like it.
Where what it's called is important is not in the battle zone, but in the headlines where public opinion is influenced. In this case Reuters manipulated the story to get a title that contains the phrase third war but hey, why bring facts into it - let's stick with "blah, blah, blah" and "load of bull".
Grade school or not, it's you who is missing the point. Reuters is not the issue and the definition of war is not the issue. Anyone should be able to understand that Gates has to say the things he said. What's he going to tell the world, we're at our limit? Well, we are at our limit when it comes to ground forces. They are being worn out. Iraq and Afghanistan are dual black holes sucking the life out of the Army and Marine Corps. Call them wars or call them tea parties, the system will break if we had to commit to a third theater in a way we are committed in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
Well... our difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan are not rooted in "waging war." We pretty much shellacked them immediately, and could do so to any country stupid enough to pick a fight. The problem in Iraq and Afghanistan is the inherent difficulty in establishing law and order. That's much harder than winning a war.
No, it wouldn't. Decapitating the regime would require the kind of attacks seen in Iraq in Baghdad in 2003 - mechanized infantry coupled with air and naval power. But once the regime was taken out, we couldn't just leave. Iran under the mullahs is bad enough. Iran as a failed state with a Taliban-style militia would be far, far worse.
I suspect we'd all be surprised how peaceful Afghanistan and Iraq would become if Iran had to defend their home soil.
Our ability to fight a third war is also highly dependent on who and how a third war would start. If Iran starts it, they will see a NATO force strike back the likes of which have not been seen for 60 years.
IMO, Iran is agitating, wanting someone to attack them. The diminutive one cannot count on his people to fight if he starts the fight, but a fight is what he is wanting..
You are exactly correct, Jude.
The US could easily win any war against just about any nation, if the issue is battlefield victory. Most nations would easily be subdued. (The exceptions are China, Russia, England, France, Pakistan, India,....maybe Brazil and Israel.)
You might note that those are all nuclear powers.
If we aren't interested in nation building after the offensive campaign, then the idea of kicking butt and going home could easily be achieved.
Iraq is really a police action. How many Police Officers get killed by criminals each year in America?
In addition to sat kills, you also have to consider the possibility of jamming. Put out enough strong RF and the RPV will be useless. Some sort of on board AI may prevent loss of assets, but otherwise the mission fails.
And back to the satellite, the Chicoms used a missile, but what about directed energy weapons. Those would not be limited by higher orbits of satellites. You don't think the US is the only country working on them, do you?
Are more sophisticated RPV's coming. Absolutely! Are pilots going to go away entirely? I don't think so.
Walk up to the next group of Afghanistan War Veterans and tell them they were in a Police Action. Better yet, stop into the nearest US Army or US Marine Corps Recruiting Office and see if you're man enough to find out for yourself if it's a war or a police action.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.