Pat Buchanan Hearts Robert Gates
In Human Events today, Pat Buchanan has a column on Secretary of Defense Robert Gates's speech ten days ago at West Point. Pat says Gates is onto something--then poses a few good questions.
Excerpts:
"(A)ny 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 Gen. MacArthur so delicately put it," Robert Gates has just told the cadets at West Point….
[H]is position implies a new foreign policy….
[W]hat are we doing with 28,000 troops in Korea..? Why not withdraw the U.S. troops, let South Koreans take their place and sell Seoul the weapons to defend itself, while restricting our role, should the North attack, to air and naval support…?
[E]ven as Gates was speaking, Pentagon officials were talking of using Marines to evict Chinese troops, should they occupy disputed islands in the South and East China seas. Among the claimants to the islands in the South China Sea are Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Brunei….Why should holding or recapturing these islands, none of which is ours and almost all of which are uninhabited, be the Marine Corps' job..?
As for Europe [where we still have some 50,000 troops], the Red Army went home decades ago….As President Eisenhower urged JFK 50 year ago, we should bring U.S. troops home and let Europe man up to its own defense.
As I say, those strike me as good questions.
Over to Ricochet. Care to suggest any answers?
- Comment (31)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Feb '11
Re: Pat Buchanan Hearts Robert Gates
Paul A. Rahe,
If free riders are inevitable, then should you continue to let the free riders have their free ride or at what point should you pick up your marbles and go home? What criteria should be used?
May '10
Re: Pat Buchanan Hearts Robert Gates
Hang On: Paul A. Rahe,
If free riders are inevitable, then should you continue to let the free riders have their free ride or at what point should you pick up your marbles and go home? What criteria should be used?
I don't think free riders are inevitable. This is essentially a cost problem. We incur a greater cost and the free riders enjoy the benefits. Assuming these defense costs need to be paid and that these expenditures contribute to the defense of the free riders in question, not an insignificant value to them, if we refuse to pay the costs then the free riders will be compelled to incur them.
Nov '10
Re: Pat Buchanan Hearts Robert Gates
Because George W. Bush's political capital was entirely spent by that point, and the godless Democrats in congress couldn't care less about other countries.
Dec '10
Re: Pat Buchanan Hearts Robert Gates
Whatever we do (and I think we should reduce our deployments to Korea and Germany), will have to be done very slowly. It is being done already, when I look at the numbers.
Considering Korea (with a hostile enemy across the DMZ) as a separate issue, Europe could be minimized, over time. For now, our defense of Europe provides the underpinnings for their socialized societies and they cannot quickly adapt. If they have to provide for more of their own defense, they will have to find the money (and will), somewhere, and that will take some time. Besides, the greatest threats to Europe are energy insecurity and internal threats and our troops don't help them with those.
Signalling that we intend to do this should be adequate, for now.
Dec '10
Re: Pat Buchanan Hearts Robert Gates
I think Buchanan is mischaracterizing Gates speech to advance his long held arch-isolationist agenda. It's no surprise he would do that.
Buchanan is almost in a class by himself as an isolationist. He does the 1930's isolationists one better. Even knowing what we know now he doesn't think we should have gotten involved in WW II.
Many of the cadets Gates addressed will be heading for Iraq and Afghanistan. Would he really tell them he thinks those wars are mistakes as he sends them off to fight them? Knowing they must lead soldiers and that some may die there?
Also, Gates is currently in Afghanistan saying we will be there beyond 2014 and speaking about negotiating a security treaty.
Here's the transcript of Gates speech.
It seems to me that Gates is simply a proponent of sea and air forces over land forces. That is an old debate in defense circles in the US. On the world stage the US has historically been a naval power first and foremost, and since WW II also an air power. Before WW II our land forces were virtually non-existent.
Edited on March 7, 2011 at 11:43pmDec '10
Re: Pat Buchanan Hearts Robert Gates
Ya'll hear, had a hound watchin’ the chikins. He ain’t seen no KY-oat so the dawg done gone home.
Funny, sun rises next mornin', ain’t got no chikins no more.
Edited on March 8, 2011 at 12:14amDec '10
Re: Pat Buchanan Hearts Robert Gates
Cont from #25.
Other than in a handful of cases, such as Germany, S. Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, and some others, most of our 100+ bases around the world are not large land force bases. For the most part they are primarily Naval and/or Air Force bases and/or communications/radar centers. Army or Marine forces are deployed at them only to protect the base.
The handful or so of major Army or Marine bases we have beyond Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait serve several purposes:
If we abandon them they will be very hard to quickly recreate in the event we need them in the future. If history is any indication, we will need at least some of them in the future. A lot of time and effort is required to move large ground forces outside of the US and build operating bases to support them.
Dec '10
Re: Pat Buchanan Hearts Robert Gates
The recent Gates speech I linked to above was at the Air Force academy.
The one Buchanan referenced was at West Point.
Here's that transcript.
Dec '10
Re: Pat Buchanan Hearts Robert Gates
We didn't do more to help Georgia because we were in the middle of a Presidential campaign -- I suspect President Bush felt that since his successor would be inheriting the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would be best to give that successor a clean slate with respect to Georgia. Of the two candidates, the one who urged both Russia AND Georgia to show restraint won, which explains why we did nothing after his inauguration. (That, and the "reset button.")
The only way for protection rackets to work is if the extortionist really is the only party around who can keep bad things from happening to good people. If the USA decides that we won't keep the strong from preying on the weak anymore, the weak will join the strong's side.
Dec '10
Re: Pat Buchanan Hearts Robert Gates
Hang On: The other thing you've got to remember is that Germany will being moving closer and closer to Russia. Why? Energy. Making trouble with Russia over something as trivial as a border dispute with Georgia will affect relations with Germany.
· Mar 7 at 12:06pm
Oddly, that reminds me of something someone once said about a border dispute between Germany and Czechoslovakia.
Oct '10
Re: Pat Buchanan Hearts Robert Gates
what's wrong with being stationed in germany? it's better than being stationed stateside.