Posted on 03/25/2007 1:31:29 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
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.
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.