Sunday, March 1, 2009
"Last August, a resurgent Russia won a swift victory over tiny, democratic Georgia. Sticking with tradition, Moscow relied on mass. The 'new' Russian military couldn't use its precision weapons effectively; its combined arms coordination was poor; pilots flying the latest aircraft couldn't hit their targets with smart bombs; and the Black Sea fleet could only deploy a five-ship squadron. ... Had we wanted to counter Russia's move militarily, we literally 'couldn't get there from here.' A few angry voices called for bombing. But we just couldn't have done it. ... Send in ground trops? Even if we could've deployed them, we couldn't have supported them or provided air cover. We--and the Georgians--were stuck. ... When naive U.S. politicians suggested sending our ground forces into Pakistan's troubled border regions to root out al-Queda and the Taliban, they didn't understand that, were Pakistan provoked by what local politicans would brand as an American invastion, Islamabad could simply deny us use of its lines of communication. That would mean 'game over' in Afghanistan. ... The answer is obvious: We need weapons that don't require permission from third-party governments for their use. That means weapons that can intervene from space", Ralph Peters (RP) at Armchair General, March 2009.
I draw a different lesson than RP, i.e., we should accept a Russian sphere of influence and stay out of it. We learned nothing from Britain's 1939 Polish guarantee, my 24 February 2008 post: http://skepticaltexascpa.blogspot.com/2008/02/kosovo-and-polish-colonels.html. As to creating space weapons, I think they would be among the first things destroyed in a war. Suppose it was "game over" in Afghanistan. So? What would we lose? Why should we care if the Taliban control Afghanistan anyway?