Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Reuters.com
May 13, 2008 By Andrew Gray, Reuters
COLORADO SPRINGS, Co. -- The U.S. military should focus more on winning in Iraq and preparing to fight other insurgencies and less on possible big wars with other countries, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Tuesday.
"I have noticed too much of a tendency toward what might be called 'next-war-itis' -- the propensity of much of the defense establishment to be in favor of what might be needed in a future conflict," Gates said.
"It is true that we would be hard-pressed to launch a major conventional ground operation elsewhere in the world at this time -- but where would we sensibly do that?" he said at a seminar for journalists in Colorado Springs.
Gates said the U.S. Air Force and Navy had ample combat power to deal with any aggression in the Gulf, on the Korean Peninsula or in the Straits of Taiwan -- clear references to possible actions by Iran, North Korea or China.
He said that, to remain viable, any major weapons program should have to show it was relevant to the type of counterinsurgency wars being waged in Iraq and Afghanistan and more likely to occupy U.S. forces in future.
"Smaller, irregular forces -- insurgents, guerrillas, terrorists -- will find ways, as they always have, to frustrate and neutralize the advantages of larger, regular militaries," Gates said.
"And even nation-states will try to exploit our perceived vulnerabilities in an asymmetric way, rather than play to our inherent strengths," he said at the seminar, organized by the conservative Heritage Foundation.
Gates' vision will be heard with interest by policymakers and makers of military hardware but he does not have much time left to implement it since President George W. Bush leaves office in January.
Gates cited a program he has championed to order thousands of heavily armored Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles (MRAPs) to protect against roadside bombs in Iraq as an example of putting current needs first.
"There have been 150-plus attacks so far on MRAPs and all but six soldiers have survived," Gates said. "These vehicles are saving lives."
He also said skills such as training the security forces of allied nations to fight insurgencies were likely to be increasingly valuable in the conflicts of the future.
Gates mentioned the U.S. Army's Future Combat Systems of high-tech weapons and vehicles, which could cost more than $200 billion, as the type of program that would need to continue to show it was relevant to counter-insurgency warfare.
In the past, he has also noted that the Air Force's top-of-the-range F-22 fighter jet has not flown a single mission in either the Iraq or Afghanistan wars.
Gates acknowledged U.S. ground forces had been stretched by long and repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan and said measures had been taken to tackle those strains, such as increasing the size of U.S. ground forces.
But he said a defeat in Iraq would be much more damaging than the current strains on the military.
"The risk of over-extending the Army is real. But I believe the risk is far greater -- to that institution, as well as to our country -- if we were to fail in Iraq," he said.
"That is the war we are in. That is the war we must win."
May 13, 2008 By Andrew Gray, Reuters
COLORADO SPRINGS, Co. -- The U.S. military should focus more on winning in Iraq and preparing to fight other insurgencies and less on possible big wars with other countries, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Tuesday.
"I have noticed too much of a tendency toward what might be called 'next-war-itis' -- the propensity of much of the defense establishment to be in favor of what might be needed in a future conflict," Gates said.
"It is true that we would be hard-pressed to launch a major conventional ground operation elsewhere in the world at this time -- but where would we sensibly do that?" he said at a seminar for journalists in Colorado Springs.
Gates said the U.S. Air Force and Navy had ample combat power to deal with any aggression in the Gulf, on the Korean Peninsula or in the Straits of Taiwan -- clear references to possible actions by Iran, North Korea or China.
He said that, to remain viable, any major weapons program should have to show it was relevant to the type of counterinsurgency wars being waged in Iraq and Afghanistan and more likely to occupy U.S. forces in future.
"Smaller, irregular forces -- insurgents, guerrillas, terrorists -- will find ways, as they always have, to frustrate and neutralize the advantages of larger, regular militaries," Gates said.
"And even nation-states will try to exploit our perceived vulnerabilities in an asymmetric way, rather than play to our inherent strengths," he said at the seminar, organized by the conservative Heritage Foundation.
Gates' vision will be heard with interest by policymakers and makers of military hardware but he does not have much time left to implement it since President George W. Bush leaves office in January.
Gates cited a program he has championed to order thousands of heavily armored Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles (MRAPs) to protect against roadside bombs in Iraq as an example of putting current needs first.
"There have been 150-plus attacks so far on MRAPs and all but six soldiers have survived," Gates said. "These vehicles are saving lives."
He also said skills such as training the security forces of allied nations to fight insurgencies were likely to be increasingly valuable in the conflicts of the future.
Gates mentioned the U.S. Army's Future Combat Systems of high-tech weapons and vehicles, which could cost more than $200 billion, as the type of program that would need to continue to show it was relevant to counter-insurgency warfare.
In the past, he has also noted that the Air Force's top-of-the-range F-22 fighter jet has not flown a single mission in either the Iraq or Afghanistan wars.
Gates acknowledged U.S. ground forces had been stretched by long and repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan and said measures had been taken to tackle those strains, such as increasing the size of U.S. ground forces.
But he said a defeat in Iraq would be much more damaging than the current strains on the military.
"The risk of over-extending the Army is real. But I believe the risk is far greater -- to that institution, as well as to our country -- if we were to fail in Iraq," he said.
"That is the war we are in. That is the war we must win."