Posted on 09/01/2011 5:43:07 PM PDT by AfricanChristian
U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, speaking at West Point, said last week that “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.” In saying this, Gates was repeating a dictum laid down by Douglas MacArthur after the Korean War, who urged the United States to avoid land wars in Asia. Given that the United States has fought four major land wars in Asia since World War II — Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq — none of which had ideal outcomes, it is useful to ask three questions: First, why is fighting a land war in Asia a bad idea? Second, why does the United States seem compelled to fight these wars? And third, what is the alternative that protects U.S. interests in Asia without large-scale military land wars?
The Hindrances of Overseas Wars
Let’s begin with the first question, the answer to which is rooted in demographics and space. The population of Iraq is currently about 32 million. Afghanistan has a population of less than 30 million. The U.S. military, all told, consists of about 1.5 million active-duty personnel (plus 980,000 in the reserves), of whom more than 550,000 belong to the Army and about 200,000 are part of the Marine Corps. Given this, it is important to note that the United States strains to deploy about 200,000 troops at any one time in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that many of these troops are in support rather than combat roles. The same was true in Vietnam, where the United States was challenged to field a maximum of about 550,000 troops (in a country much more populous than Iraq or Afghanistan) despite conscription and a larger standing army.
(Excerpt) Read more at stratfor.com ...
I thought Bin Laden was in Pakistan? Everybody knew for years and years Bin Laden was in Pakistan. Why would you fight in Afghanistan to kill Bin Laden when he is in Pakistan? Are the street lights better in Afghanistan?
You should be glad Americans don’t fight like the Waffen SS or the Red Army (with the NKVD behind their backs to make sure that ‘deserters’ are shot).
What distinguishes America from all other great powers is the respect for human rights. It does not diminish you, it makes you stronger.
Now, even if you fought like the Red Army there is no way you could subdue 1.3 billion Chinese on their home turf, if they decided to go asymmetrical. Appreciate that fact and live with it.
You still have dominance on air and sea, enjoy it while it lasts.
Seems like if an Asian country declares war on us there are only two options: surrender or nuke the bastards.
And quess what, folks?
The Iraqis are... Asians!
As are Israelis.
As are the Russians east of the Ural mountains.
And you thought politically correctly that it was Chinamen and other Orientals who were ‘Asian’!
Vizzini:
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...
Vizzini:
[Vizzini stops suddenly, his smile frozen on his face and falls to the ground dead]
Live with it, be glad, and enjoy it while it lasts?...
I’ll do that thank you.
Public school?
Good article but six months old. Gates speech discussed here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2681227/posts
Where is it? Africa? Europe? I think Churchill referred to it as West Asia.
Fighting a lad war is not the problem. Fighting against a group using guerrilla warfare tactics and not being prepared to chase them wherever they hide and kill them is the problem.
Winning is changing the political order on the ground.
Americans have won all the wars they have fought since ww2.
The magic bar of winning= disneylands forever in foreign lands is ridiculous and we would do well to ignore it.
If the Taliban or other adverse groups come back— its no because they defeated the miltiary. Its certainly because we have withdrawn. The same is true of Vietnam.
An interesting article and worth reading, whether you agree with it or not. I could write paragraphs about my own thoughts; some would agree and others disagree. Some highlights:
1. Don’t start a war until you know how you will end it. (This obviously does not apply if you are attacked).
2. There is no such thing as a ‘limited’ war. The lesson we did not learn in Korea.
3. Know who you are fighting, and what their motivation is. Lesson we should have learned from Viet Nam.
I could go on, but it is late and I am tired.
Never fight a land war in Asia, while so many foreign interests are making policies in the USA. If our forefathers had temporarily closed our borders between 1850 and 1920, we wouldn’t be having such problems.
Here’s something that Stratfor and other global business interest groups should learn more about. Quotes from the words of George Washington:
“Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?”
“Nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded...The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.”
And one for foreign interests that crept into our government at all levels before completely becoming real Americans.
“Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder.”
“Never fight a land war in Asia” was a bit wrong, considering that history has quite a few land wars in Asia!
That's "asians" as in Tungushic or Chinese peoples -- the peoples of East and South-East Asia and Central Asia
The Persians had a more "noble" way of fighting as did the various Vedic and pre-Islamic era Hindus in South Asia.
The Mongolic-Turks were just mean, mean -- they massacred much of the Persians -- what is now Central Asia was at one time the Persian satraps of Bactria, Sogdiana and Khwarezm
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.