Since when was Iraq in Asia? Maybe in Britain’s “Asia,” but not U.S. Asia.
“You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never to get involved in a land war in Asia. And only slightly less well known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!”
Correction, any future def. sec. who advises the president to engage in a land war should make sure the house of reps is not made up of spineless libtards..
They're the ones who lost Vietnam, not our military.........and they're the ones who tried to undermine Bush and cause another defeat in Iraq.
How about no oversea wars, simply due to the fact we constrain our military to fight in a “politically correct” fashion.
Nothing like restricting the greatest military in the world.
We can’t even use them to guard our own border.
Good grief, my head hurts.
It is doubtful that the Germans would have capitulated to the Americans alone.
So we can’t win a Western land war either. Canada may need to start sweating.
Because American culture and Asian cultures consider warfare differently. Derived from European sensibilities, we play warfare like a game. Asians have a much longer history of warfare than we do, and generally, a much more savage one. We're simply not willing to play as savagely as they are, so when we arrive at 'victory', our 'victims' generally don't recognize it. Hiroshima and Nagasaki being the only notable variation, and one that Asians culturally understood right away.
It sounds trite, but it's not. Lives are much cheaper and expendable in Asian warfare, and always have been. Political power is not really recognized until some level of potential savagery has been established. It doesn't have to be followed through on, but they have to know that you're willing and able to go all the way to win.
Second, why does the United States seem compelled to fight these wars?
These nations are often ruled by people who value life cheaply, and see violence as a valid means of expanding political and economic influence. (This was true before Communism as it was after). Being civilized quote unquote, we are naturally going to come in conflict with these elements.
And third, what is the alternative that protects U.S. interests in Asia without large-scale military land wars?
The only thing that causes the warlord mentality to stay his hand it a consequence that makes his actions not worth the risk. That consequence has to be personal to the leader, credible, and practically unavoidable.
Since we generally force ourselves to fight wars against nations and not men, we encourage warlords to fight us. A policy of assassination, either in the classic sense, or in blitzkrieg-type regime changes followed by putting a new faction in power and leaving right away, would de-incentivize enemies to fight us.
If a tough, troublemaking leader knows that if he starts trouble with us, we'll either kill him, or put his family and tribe under the rule of his hated enemies and then leave (leaving them defenseless against retribution), then it makes causing us trouble not worth the effort.
In short, the biggest threat America faces to fighting wars is our own moral vanity.
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’!
Good article but six months old. Gates speech discussed here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2681227/posts
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!
His mistake is assuming the ‘call to fight’ in these areas, or any area for that matter does not include the option to nuke the b!tches till they need 50,000 sun block.