Defense Secretary Gates: Wars like Iraq, Afghanistan slim to happen again

**deathgodusmc** · 02-26-11, 09:56 AM

Not practically Okinawa is Japan. There was only one more jump to complete the ass kicking.

**WickedTribe** · 02-26-11, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Of course we wouldn't. No war in recent history has been fought the same as the ones before it. It would be stupid to ignore new tech and run with the same ole shit.

That appears to be exactly the what's going on in Iraq and Afganistan. Maybe with new tech, but with the same tactics that didn't work in Vietnam.

**deathgodusmc** · 02-26-11, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

That appears to be exactly the what's going on in Iraq and Afganistan. Maybe with new tech, but with the same tactics that didn't work in Vietnam.

That would be our governments fault. The general at the time said what he needed to get the job done and he was given about a quarter of it. They still have not realised you either go all in or dont bother. The only thing that happens when you try to split it is people get killed and you waste years of time and resources.

**WickedTribe** · 02-26-11, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

That would be our governments fault. The general at the time said what he needed to get the job done and he was given about a quarter of it. They still have not realised you either go all in or dont bother. The only thing that happens when you try to split it is people get killed and you waste years of time and resources.

I agree. That would be the fault of the people in power in 2003.

**deathgodusmc** · 02-26-11, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

I agree. That would be the fault of the people in power in 2003.

Nice try but Obama was the last one to say to half ass it. It crossed both party lines and presidents.

**Red_Lizard2** · 02-27-11, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Of course we wouldn't. No war in recent history has been fought the same as the ones before it. It would be stupid to ignore new tech and run with the same ole shit.

he isn't talking about just "new tech" he means the whole strategy we went in with. Gates opinion is we won't run the same tactic of heavy ground forces, being sent in to completely topple a regime. Instead we'll use our air and naval abilities to take of problems before they turn into massive ones like Afghanistan did.

**deathgodusmc** · 02-27-11, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

he isn't talking about just "new tech" he means the whole strategy we went in with. Gates opinion is we won't run the same tactic of heavy ground forces, being sent in to completely topple a regime. Instead we'll use our air and naval abilities to take of problems before they turn into massive ones like Afghanistan did.

Thats an assinine statement. No war is the same as another. How can you begin to say what you will do in the future? Naval abilites are limited. Sure the tech on those guns has come a long way but in the end its still just a big ass morter shell. Air abiliteis are key to any fight we have in recent decades but you will never get rid of boots on the ground and in some cases will always be the only option unless your looking for high civilian casualties. Gates is an idiot if he thinks any different.

Just to be clear i didnt mean what you said was assinine i meant gates.

**Red_Lizard2** · 02-27-11, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Thats an assinine statement. No war is the same as another. How can you begin to say what you will do in the future? Naval abilites are limited. Sure the tech on those guns has come a long way but in the end its still just a big ass morter shell. Air abiliteis are key to any fight we have in recent decades but you will never get rid of boots on the ground and in some cases will always be the only option unless your looking for high civilian casualties. Gates is an idiot if he thinks any different.

Just to be clear i didnt mean what you said was assinine i meant gates.

Well the way I read it, his opinion on why it will be like that is he thinks the Army will have a hard time justifying the costs of their ground forces, making it near impossible to pull off something like we did in the early 2000s. At least what that is what I think he was trying to say at least in part to the air and naval stuff.

Granted I don't really agree, as I think senators/representatives/presidents can rant up and down about the cost of the military and how their budget is too fat and needs to be cut etc. etc. etc., but when it comes down to the time they have to vote I'll bet at least 95% of those folks will vote in favor of the military and its spending.

**deathgodusmc** · 02-27-11, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

Well the way I read it, his opinion on why it will be like that is he thinks the Army will have a hard time justifying the costs of their ground forces, making it near impossible to pull off something like we did in the early 2000s. At least what that is what I think he was trying to say at least in part to the air and naval stuff.

Granted I don't really agree, as I think senators/representatives/presidents can rant up and down about the cost of the military and how their budget is too fat and needs to be cut etc. etc. etc., but when it comes down to the time they have to vote I'll bet at least 95% of those folks will vote in favor of the military and its spending.

Agreed

**Sawemoff** · 02-27-11, 01:30 PM

I don't think he is at all talking about 'eliminating' all troops on the ground. He is saying that the large part of the defense budget will go to large air and sea forces/techological advancements, while the troops on the ground will still play a large role, but likely in much smaller force sizes with less heavy armor. I very well could be mistaken, but I feel that he is inferring that the gaps made by a smaller land army force are going to be filled in with naval and air force.

Don't criticize the interpretation, but thats just what I see his words meaning.

Note - on a side note, you cant forget that Gates was also the head of the CIA for quite some time, so his theory about roles for troops on the ground might be founded from a different perspective.