>> ..but I, a pencil-necked Arkansas accountant, know better..LOL!
We all have our opinions. I do seem to recall you criticizing Rumsfeld and I can assure you a cow-f*cker like you is not in his class intellectually.
>> Which is what Gates was referring to.
I don't think so. In fact, the remark you quoted was a sound bite that was taken horribly out of context. Had you read his remarks, which I did, you might have understand that context. Here's the runup to the remark in question:
"We can’t know with absolute certainty what the future of warfare will hold, but we do know it will be exceedingly complex, unpredictable, and -- as they say in the staff colleges -- “unstructured.” Just think about the range of security challenges we face right now beyond Iraq and Afghanistan: terrorism and terrorists in search of weapons of mass destruction, Iran, North Korea, military modernization programs in Russia and China, failed and failing states, revolution in the Middle East, cyber, piracy, proliferation, natural and man-made disasters, and more. And I must tell you, when it comes to predicting the nature and location of our next military engagements, since Vietnam, our record has been perfect. 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.
The need for heavy armor and firepower to survive, close with, and destroy the enemy will always be there, as veterans of Sadr City and Fallujah can no doubt attest. And one of the benefits of the drawdown in Iraq is the opportunity to conduct the kind of full-spectrum training -- including mechanized combined arms exercises -- that was neglected to meet the demands of the current wars. Looking ahead, though, in the competition for tight defense dollars within and between the services, the Army also must confront the reality that the most plausible, high-end scenarios for the U.S. military are primarily naval and air engagements -- whether in Asia, the Persian Gulf, or elsewhere. The strategic rationale for swift-moving expeditionary forces, be they Army or Marines, airborne infantry or special operations, is self-evident given the likelihood of counterterrorism, rapid reaction, disaster response, or stability or security force assistance missions. But in my opinion, 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,” as General MacArthur so delicately put it."
As you can see, Gates was merely paraphrasing the remarks of Douglas MacArthur in his off-handed comment to a reporter concerning Korea. Keep in mind the military history of the man from whom these remarks originated. It is, indeed, difficult to imagine MacArthur making this remark were the United States under attack by, for example, North Korea. Similarly, there was nothing in Gates' remarks to suggest that he believed we shouldn't have defended ourselves against al Qaeda.
I recognize all this is lost on you, a lame-brained nitwit. |
