US should stay out of land wars: Defense Secretary Robert Gates
 

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has warned against committing the US military to big land wars in Asia or the Middle East, saying anyone proposing otherwise should have his head examined".

Gates said he was not suggesting that the US army "will - or should - turn into a Victorian nation-building constabulary designed to chase guerrillas, build schools, or sip tea.
"But as the prospects for another head-on clash of large mechanised land armies seem less likely, the army will be increasingly challenged to justify the number, size, and cost of its heavy formations," he said.
Future US military interventions abroad will likely take the form of "swift-moving expeditionary forces, be they army or marines, airborne infantry or special operations," which Gates said "is self-evident given the likelihood of counterterrorism, rapid reaction, disaster response, or stability or security force assistance missions".
Gates is set to leave his job this year, and his presentation was a farewell speech to the West Point students.
"We can't know with absolute certainty what the future of warfare will hold," Gates said, "but we do know it will be exceedingly complex, unpredictable, and - as they say in the staff colleges - unstructured".
The United States also has a poor track record at predicting the next conflict, Gates said.
"We have never once gotten it right, from the Mayaguez to Grenada, Panama, Somalia, the Balkans, Haiti, Kuwait, Iraq, and more - we had no idea a year before any of these missions that we would be so engaged," he said.


SOURCE (FEB 26TH)

U.S, in my opinion will not be taking action of any kind, unless the vessels and other equipment are attacked.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_LpF1Escpsz...00/vizzini.jpg
"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!'"

Eventually we'll learn "putting a boot in someones ass" mixed with patriotic fervor ain't getting us anywhere.

I thought we learned this in vietnam?? :06:

I hear History is cyclical in nature.

I agree with Secretary Gates.

The United States need's too stay out of wars until we learn how to fight one, WW 2 didn't last this long.

US knows how to fight.
It just confuzed about the objectives.

we need to stay out of gurella wars you mean. were not set up to fight those kind of wars. our military is designed to fight the Russians on the open plains of Europe.

But we need to stay out of wars that don't involve us. Afghanistan was one thing...but why was saddam our problem? a little fat checking would have shown all those "WMD's" were just made up illusions.

Charles de Gaulle once said : "You may be sure that the Americans will commit all the stupidities they can think of, plus some that are beyond imagination"

The truth is somewhere in between or maybe not. :haha:

That coming from a French General....who would have never marched in Paris again if not(in large part, not forgetting other Allies who saved France) for Americans.Unwarranted arrogance by the French, typical.

:arrgh!:What is the first thing they teach new recruits in the French Army? How to say "I surrender" in German.(old one, but a good one)

It's about having weak leaders on the civillian side.Fighting wars "half assed" does not work.Iraq was bumbled because they went in light for a "shock and awe" Afghanistan has been mismanaged as well.Going in light rarely, if ever, works.

I would answer with 2 questions:

1. What leader in the past 40 years would you consider 'strong'?

2. Having answered that, when in the last 40 years has America's foreign policy in the Middle East been successful in promoting our ends of our national security?

The answer to question one can and will be skewed towards political preference, but the answer to question two is an unequivocal 'never'. 'Nation building' is a fool's errand, strongman or not.