Sunday editorial: Planning “the long war”
In the past few months, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has subtly begun putting the Pentagon on what he calls “war footing.” Last week, he dropped the subtlety and, in the interest of preparing for “the long war” against Islamist jihadists, he attacked the Air Force — the United States Air Force.
In a remarkable pair of speeches delivered Monday, the first at the Air War College in Alabama and second at West Point, Mr. Gates went public with a battle he’s been waging privately since replacing Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon 16 months ago. His remarks were buried under the avalanche of trivia that was coming out of the Pennsylvania primary.
The speeches, as well as a series of promotions Mr. Gates made last week, ripped the curtains off a long-bubbling Pentagon feud. On one side are Mr. Gates and a cadre of warrior-intellectual senior officers who believe that the greatest military threat to the United States in the immediate future will come from Islamist fundamentalists. For Mr. Gates and his cohorts, “the long war” already is underway and shows no sign of stopping.
“A drawdown of U.S. force levels in Iraq is inevitable over time; the debate you hear in Washington is largely about pacing,” Mr. Gates told cadets at West Point. “But the kind of enemy we face today — violent jihadist networks — will not allow us to remain at peace. What has been called the ‘long war’ is likely to be many years of persistent, engaged combat all around the world in differing degrees of size and intensity.
“This generational challenge cannot be wished away or put on a timetable. There are no exit strategies. To paraphrase the Bolshevik Leon Trotsky, we may not be interested in the long war, but the long war is interested in us.”
On the other side of the Pentagon divide are senior military officers deeply concerned with what the war in Iraq has done to military readiness. They want to focus on rebuilding a “big green Army,” on building new generations of Navy vessels and Air Force fighters and on returning the Marines to their expeditionary role, instead of using Marines to supplement the overstretched Army.
What Mr. Gates did last week ensures that his views will dominate at least the first years of the next presidential administration. It signals a fierce battle for dollars and manpower between the “long war” fighters and the admirals, generals, contractors and members of Congress who believe deeply in preparing for strategic warfare with new generations of weapons that are decisive in battle — and expensive.
One such weapon, unmanned Predator aircraft developed some 15 years ago, has proved to be extraordinarily valuable in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not only can it send real-time video of insurgent-held areas back to U.S. commanders, but it also can fire Hellfire missiles at ground targets, including al-Qaida members and other insurgent leaders. Commanders in Iraq want more of them. It’s been “like pulling teeth” to get the Air Force to provide them, Mr. Gates said.
The Air Force insists that only trained pilots can fly Predators, albeit by remote control from Nevada. Moreover, Mr. Gates noted that the Air Force is spending billions on revamping its fleets of fighter jets with new F-22 Raptors, despite the fact that “the last time a U.S. ground force was attacked from the sky was more than half a century ago, and the last Air Force jet lost to aerial combat was in Vietnam.”
Two days after making those remarks, Mr. Gates named Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of the Iraq war who shares his views on the long war, to head up CentCom, the U.S. Central Command. That puts Gen. Petraeus in charge U.S. strategy everywhere from the Horn of Africa to Central Asia, which includes Afghanistan and Iran.
At CentCom, Gen. Petraeus fills the vacancy left by Admiral William “Fox” Fallon, who was ousted abruptly last month after questioning the Bush administration’s focus on Iraq. Gen. Petraeus and Admiral Fallon had come to personify the two poles of the Pentagon’s debate over the future role of the U.S. military. Gen. Petraeus appears to have won this round.
These are all serious people making serious decisions that will affect U.S. security in coming decades. The next president of the United States, whoever it turns out to be, will inherit them. It would be well if the candidates and voters took a little time out from chatting about lapel pins, preachers and bowling scores to discuss these issues.
Predator aircraft and other remote-controlled devices are well-suited to the type of war that we have to conduct against the insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the future as long as radical terrorism exists. We know all too well what happens to any American serviceman or contractor who is captured.
While the relatively short-range IED, mortar, RPG, and AK47 remain the terrorist’s weapons of choice, we are also seeing an increase in longer range sniper fire taking down our men and women, and expecially the less experienced ones. The Lehrer News Hour regularly shows photos of our newly deceased, many of them twenty year old Marine lance corporals.
One logical answer to this, and one which should have begun long ago, is the “Combat Hunter” program introduced by General James Mattis and currently being taught at the Marines’ Camp Pendleton. Professional hunters and experienced snipers are showing our young soldiers the “tricks of the trade”, including how to stalk and kill, and how to keep from being stalked and killed. They are finally getting the kind of “know-how” that Sgt. Alvin York, Audie Murphy, and Marine sniper Carlos Hathcock learned from childhood in the woods. One problem is that only a bit of the art can be taught in a few days or weeks.
Americans have lost that aptitude. The shooting sports are declining, and many of our political leaders have been trying to undermine them for generations. It is time to put more “boots on the ground” that can make an 800 yard shot with a .308, and a 2000 yard shot with a .50 caliber Barrett rifle.
I dont pretend to be an expert on weapons or Islamist jihadists, but I said in letters to the editor the day after 9/11 and I still feel, that a billion/trillion in economic aid will go farther in bringing peace than a billion/trillion in warfare. The goal should be a department of peace, per my former Mayor Dennis Kucinich, for whom I was an Assistant Law Director, and we should spend just as much money sharing our wealth with those without around the world, than we do arming our military. An investment in peace and our future is how I would look at it.
There is no such thing as a short war, never has been, and never will be.. Wars do not end when the last shot is fired. They can continue for centuries in different forms. Our Civil War is continuing. Look at the Obama and Clinton campaigns. .
Did WWII, end in the Pacific end with the surrender of Hirohito? No. Rusk and Okazaki sat around and dreamed up the “Administrative Agreement between the United Sates and Japan”. That agreement requires us to provide for the defense of Japan to perpetuity..
Mr. Haas, #2. Did you consider that you can’t buy friendship or loyalty with dollars…from ANYBODY/ You buy DE$PENDENCE. I can give you limitless illustrations of that with countries, socio economic groups, and religions groups.. I will give you an illustration of moose instead of some group I might offend
Moose love green cabbage. You can go out and feed cabbage to your neighborhood moose. Do that for a week, The moose will meet you when you get home for his handout. Forget to buy cabbage.? The Moose will stomp, and maybe kill you. Moose are just like people and countries in their thinking. They detest not getting a handout.
Now, do you understand why if you spend money as you proposed, that if you will have a trillion in spending and 5 trillion needed to defend the country when you don’t give your recipients money.
A head of cabbage costs about a dollar, The cost of buying a rifle to kill that Moose is about $100.
Understand my position?
Yes, I understand your position, tho I dont think you understand the reasons for mine, which is my fault for not explaining it better if at all. And as for meese and people, I would put you closer to the former than the latter, no disrespect intended, nor do I mean that in the bad sense.
The term “long war” has been in usage for a while now, cf Phillip Bobbitt’s “The Shield of Achilles”, and others. It has been used to refer to the period of war starting in the late 18th early 19th centuries and continuing through today.
During the 20th century it took on the guise of the “Cold War”. The simple fact of the matter is that the bulk of todays conflicts harken back to the colonial empires of Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, etc.
For the past 2 centuries there have not been any extensive periods of “peace”. It is sad that Gates feels that we must continue these conflicts into a third and fourth century.
Bill Hass - as an English major at Harvard, I was surprised that you didn’t comment on the use of the word “well” in the last paragraph as an adverb modifying the linking verb “be” rather than than “good” because of the use of a linking verb rather than a normal verb.