Security

Gates: Technology Has Its Limits

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates took to the podium at National Defense University on Monday to level another of his famous broadsides, this time issuing "a far-reaching critique of the way the Pentagon fights wars and buys weapons," according to The New York Times. A Pentagon e-mail highlights some of the secretary’s main points: THE […]

316049689_d735ef1a9b_o Secretary of Defense Robert Gates took to the podium at National Defense University on Monday to level another of his famous broadsides, this time issuing "a far-reaching critique of the way the Pentagon fights wars and buys weapons," according to The New York Times.

A Pentagon e-mail highlights some of the secretary's main points:

  • THE WAR WE ARE IN

America's ability to deal with threats for years to come will depend importantly on our performance in the conflicts of today ... In the past I have expressed frustration over the defense bureaucracy's priorities and lack of urgency when it came to the current conflicts -- that for too many in the Pentagon it has been business as usual, as opposed to a wartime footing.

  • COIN AND STABILITY OPS

Let's be honest with ourselves. The most likely catastrophic threats to our homeland -- for example, an American city poisoned or reduced to rubble by a terrorist attack -- are more likely to emanate from failing states than from aggressor states. The kinds of capabilities needed to deal with these scenarios cannot be considered exotic distractions or temporary diversions. We do not have the luxury of opting out because they do not conform to preferred notions of the American way of war.

  • CHINA

[China's] investments in cyber and anti-satellite warfare, anti-air and anti-ship weaponry, submarines, and ballistic missiles could threaten America's primary means to project power and help allies in the Pacific: our bases, air and sea assets, and the networks that support them. This will put a premium on America's ability to strike from over the horizon, employ missile defenses, and will require shifts from short-range to longer-range systems such as the Next Generation Bomber.

  • CONVENTIONAL DOMINANCE

[A]lthough U.S. predominance in conventional warfare is not unchallenged, it is sustainable for the medium term given current trends. It is true that the United States would be hard pressed to fight a major conventional ground war elsewhere on short notice, but as I've said before, where on Earth would we seriously do that?

  • PROCUREMENT

For the better part of five decades, the trend has gone towards lower numbers as technology gains made each system more capable. In recent years these platforms have grown ever more baroque, ever more costly, are taking longer to build, and are being fielded in ever dwindling quantities. Given that resources are not unlimited, the dynamic of exchanging numbers for capability is reaching a point of diminishing returns.

  • TECHNOLOGY & LIMITS

First, limits about what the United States -- still the strongest and greatest nation on earth -- can do. The power of our military's global reach has been an indispensable contributor to world peace -- and must remain so. But not every outrage, every act of aggression, every crisis can or should elicit an American military response, and we should acknowledge such. Be modest about what military force can accomplish, and what technology can accomplish.

(Photo: via Georgetown U.)

ALSO: