This is FREE intelligence for distribution. Forward this to your colleagues.
Never Fight a Land War in Asia
U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, speaking at West Point, said
last week that “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.” In saying this, Gates was
repeating a dictum laid down by Douglas MacArthur after the Korean War,
who urged the United States to avoid land wars in Asia. Given that the
United States has fought four major land wars in Asia since World War II
— Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq — none of which had ideal
outcomes, it is useful to ask three questions: First, why is fighting a
land war in Asia a bad idea? Second, why does the United States seem
compelled to fight these wars? And third, what is the alternative that
protects U.S. interests in Asia without large-scale military land wars?
Let’s begin with the first question, the answer to which is rooted in
demographics and space. The population of Iraq is currently about 32
million. Afghanistan has a population of less than 30 million. The U.S.
military, all told, consists of about 1.5 million active-duty personnel
(plus 980,000 in the reserves), of whom more than 550,000 belong to the
Army and about 200,000 are part of the Marine Corps. Given this, it is
important to note that the United States strains to deploy about 200,000
troops at any one time in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that many of these
troops are in support rather than combat roles. The same was true in
Vietnam, where the United States was challenged to field a maximum of
about 550,000 troops (in a country much more populous than Iraq or
Afghanistan) despite conscription and a larger standing army. Indeed,
the same problem existed in World War II. Read more »
