The Hat Trick

"Which road should I take?" she asked the cat.
"Where do you want to get to?" the cat asked helpfully.
"I don't know," admitted Alice.
"Then," advised the cat, "any road will take you there."
--Cheshire Cat, from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
_____________

We all knows times are not good, so corporate members often have to wear many hats. Add to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates's vita that of necromancer or magus. It is unclear if he matriculated an accredited program at the Hogworts School.

Gates says, "today's enemies are the foes of the future," conventional conflicts are probably passe, and warns the Pentagon not "to fall back on Cold War mentalities." Are these diktats based upon intelligence, or is he pulling this out of his magic hat?

Historically our enemies have morphed into trade partners, so what does he have that indicates the future would be otherwise? China, Italy, Germany were all enemies who now regularly trade and inhabit our world.

When Gates says, "the armed services and their corporate counterparts should steer technology and resources toward battling insurgencies," exactly how and when did the U.S. become the epicenter of COIN? It is still the "Department of Defense," not "Department of COIN."

The U.S. should not feel compelled to fight insurgents unless they're in the streets of America. Let other countries fight their own insurgencies; putting our horse in the race only complicates the bookkeeper's job.

Gates also addressed the need to prioritize current needs versus projected ones:

He mentioned the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected truck, a $1 million vehicle designed to protect U.S. troops from improvised bombs that Gates said met resistance because some officials said it would not be useful after the war in Iraq. He said that in more than 150 attacks on MRAPs, only six soldiers died, citing it as an example of a system that troops need now but that is "competing with the funding for future weapons systems with strong constituencies inside and outside the Pentagon (Defense Secretary Urges Military to Mold Itself to Fight Iraq-Style Wars.)"

Just imagine if the U.S. would quit their job as Baghdad security guards. We wouldn't need the MRAPs and no soldiers would be dying. Saves lives, saves money. Sounds like an aphorism even George Bush could spit out.

Similarly Gates spoke of the Air Force's F-22 fighter jet, "which that service covets for its speed, agility and ability to battle advanced fighters from countries such as China, but which has not made a single combat sortie over Iraq or Afghanistan."

In historical context, the British Hurricane and Spitfire planes didn't keep the Germans from conquering Western Europe in 1940, but they sure saved Britain during the Battle for Britain air campaigns. The M60 tank never fought in combat against the Russian hordes of 1960-75, but they served as a bulwark versus Soviet tank invasions. Only time can tell if the cost of the AF F-22 is justified.

Gates has said we have untapped Naval and Air Force reserve power to "defeat any adversary who committed an act of aggression." While he conceded there would be a risk, "it is a prudent and manageable one." Perhaps wisdom from George H.W. Bush should be enlisted about now -- "wouldn't be prudent at this juncture."

When Gates argues for success in Iraq -- "That is the war we are in. That is the war we must win" -- he forgets this is a war which defies all definitions and cannot be quantified in objective mission terms. How can you win if you don't know what winning looks like?

Ranger, enjoying precision and commitment as he does in his daily life, would be happy if the U.S. could just state what it wants to win, in quantifiable terms.