DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech examines the intersection of technology and defense from every angle and provides analysis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • ‘Canes
  • Af-Cam
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the “Buzz”
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Crazy Ivan
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT’s Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • F-35 Watch
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Bubble with Joe Buff
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar’s Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples’ Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward’z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Strategery » Pace Takes Page from Kerry Playbook?

Pace Takes Page from Kerry Playbook?

pace-Dubya.jpgBack in 2004, John Kerry got hammered relentlessly for likening the fight against terrorism to the fight against crime.

“We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance,” Kerry said. “As a former law-enforcement person, I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn’t on the rise. It isn’t threatening people’s lives every day, and fundamentally, it’s something that you continue to fight, but it’s not threatening the fabric of your life.”

Will the same folks that beat on Kerry now slam the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace?

Asked in [an] interview, on MSNBC, if the United States was winning in Iraq, the general replied: “You have to define winning. I dont mean to be glib about that. Winning to me is simply having each of the nations that were trying to help have a secure environment inside of which their government and their people can function…“
“Example: Here in Washington, D.C., theres crime, but theres a police force,” he said. “And the police force keeps the level of crime below the level at which the government can function. Thats really what winning in the war on terrorism is.”
(emphasis mine)

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not a big fan of Massachusetts’ dorky, superior-than-thou junior senator. But I did think he got a raw deal on that particular comment. And it’s interesting to see how the thinking on Iraq is shifting.

Share |

November 10th, 2006 | Strategery | 224116 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2006/11/10/pace-takes-page-from-kerry-playbook/Pace+Takes+Page+from+Kerry+Playbook%3F2006-11-10+19%3A07%3A46jason You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Chinooks To the Rescue | Vet’s Day Bump: Laptops for Injured Troops » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. C-Low says:
    November 10, 2006 at 2:47 pm

    Kerry got that raw deal becuase his comment was saying that we should treat International terrorist like common criminals with supena’s, Judges, FBI, Interpol and such NOT by military means. Basicly we should just accept our civilians being killed every couple years by terrorist.
    Pace’s comments was saying that the military can’t kill all the terrorist (how do you really stop some freak from going to the local market and blowing himself and his neighbors up?) but like police in DC the military working internationaly can beat it down into low level (that level would be not able to hit US Warships Cole, Embasies Narobi-Kenya, World Trade 93′ & 01′, Madrid, London trains).
    Pakistan authorities may use our supeana’s from the FBI to wipe thier a*s with but when Predators obliterate a terrorist training camp they can’t do much.

    Reply
  2. Noah Shachtman says:
    November 10, 2006 at 2:57 pm

    C:
    If Kerry really did say that, I agree, he should be hosed. However, can you find a statement where he actually said that we should give up the military option?
    nms

    Reply
  3. Endyr says:
    November 10, 2006 at 3:03 pm

    I think I agree with Noah on this one.
    General Pace and Senator Kerry’s statements do seem to be basically saying that they want to force terrorism to be a small enough problem that it can be effectively contained.
    I think that is the only logical statement of victory there is. You are never going to make it impossible for some loon to blow up a cafe or something, but you have to simply mitigate the risk of it happening.
    I like Noah am not a fan of Kerry* but I think he did get that comment taken out of context and hosed on, but then isn’t that what elections are all about. =P
    * who by the way served in Vietnam.

    Reply
  4. Edward Liu says:
    November 10, 2006 at 3:37 pm

    Why is it that the “War on Terror” has to be either a police matter OR a military matter? It seems to me that it needs to be both, with a healthy helping of good old fashioned diplomacy to counter the negative attitudes that foster terrorism in the first place.
    Semantically, I see absolutely no difference between what Gen. Pace said and what Sen. Kerry said.

    Reply
  5. C-Low says:
    November 10, 2006 at 4:08 pm

    Kerry is a politician and a master of nuance but I think it was pretty clear that Kerry was slamming the idea of pre-emption and aggressive military efforts of US choosing the battle field that has defined the Bush policy in favor of a more Judicious, FBI, Warrants, Interpol, Police actions, military reactionary measures (cruise missile here or there after a attack) that were used in the Clinton days, when military options were at best a secondary thought.
    The military option albeit not without cost (very limited in historical comparison but still heart felt cost) is WORKING and succeeding. All the money in world cannot protect the homeland of a free and open society all we can do is force the fight on a field of our choice.
    Radical Islamist because of pride have been forced into spending most if not all of their limited resource in Iraq/Afghanistan instead of here in our homeland. For them getting US out of their house is above all else (it

    Reply
  6. Kaltes says:
    November 10, 2006 at 5:38 pm

    Look, there is no way around it when Kerry calls terrorism merely a NUISANCE, and when he says he wants to go BACK TO A TIME when terrorism was not the focus (that would be September 10, folks). His statements were a clear indication that he intended to tolerate terror and make it less of a priority, only acting if and when it got out of hand. This is the same failed strategy that Clinton used in the 1990s.
    Now, just so you know I am being fair with Kerry here, let me say that I believe Kerry’s recent comment about uneducated people who don’t study ending up stuck in Iraq was very likely a reference to BUSH and not intended as a reference to the TROOPS. I don’t agree that Kerry intended to slam the troops merely because it would have been politically suicidal for him to do so. I do know that MANY liberals truly believe that the US military is comprised of people who couldn’t get ahead by getting educated. I have had more then one liberal tell me to my face in the last few weeks that Kerry obviously didnt mean to slam the troops, but by the way, what he said was true of the troops! Hahah. Of all things! So I think the backlash against Kerry was technically wrong, and I didn’t jump on that bandwagon, but I think the people who DID jump on the bandwagon were reasonable people who were holding Kerry accountable for his history of bashing the troops in his career dating back to Vietnam.

    Reply
  7. Noah Shachtman says:
    November 10, 2006 at 6:01 pm

    K:
    As is typical with Kerry, I’ve found statements that both contradict and bolster (at least a little) what you say. But, bottom line, I don’t think Kerry’s words back up your notion that he “intended to tolerate terror and make it less of a priority, only acting if and when it got out of hand.“
    Throughout the ’04 campaign, Kerry said a bunch of things like this:
    http://​www​.international​.ucla​.edu/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​.​a​s​p​?​p​a​r​e​n​t​i​d​=​8​320
    “We cannot win the War on Terror through military power alone. As President, if necessary, I will use military force to protect our security, our people, and our vital interests.
    “But the fight requires us to use every tool at our disposal. Not only a strong military

    Reply
  8. campbell says:
    November 10, 2006 at 8:00 pm

    Oh yeah, and what “Phila” said; last two portions.

    Reply
  9. David Hambling says:
    November 11, 2006 at 5:09 am

    Perhaps it would be useful to look at the British experience here. IRA terrorism continued for decades, including many bombings in London, assassinations of major political figures and more than one near-miss with attacks on the Prime Minister.
    The was NEVER classed as a war and IRA members were never treated as POWs. At all times it was treated as an extension of the fight against crime. There was never any question of shooting out of hand, and the idea of airstrikes in West Belfast — or over the border in Eire — was unthinkable.
    As a direct consequence, there was no escalation of the sort we have seen in the struggle against Islamic terrorism and which the head of MI5 commented on yesterday.

    Reply
  10. Byron Skinner says:
    November 11, 2006 at 2:19 pm

    Good Morning Folks,
    Lets face it General Pace’s job is on the line along with all of the Rumsfled appointed three and four stars in the Pentagon. Along with General Casey, General Pace can expect to be among the first to be fired when Robert Gates takes over as Sec. Of Defense.
    Long know as “Rumsfeld’s Parott” General Peter Pace has not stood out as a desenting voice to what has very widely become know as a failed policy in Iraq or even Afghanistan. His absence was noted Wednesday, when his boss “resigned”, General Pace has disgraced the Marine Corp. by his performance as the first Marine Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a stain on the Corps honor that will take generations to go away. To equate his thinking with Senator Jhn Kerry is not out of line.
    ALLONS,
    Byron Skinner

    Reply
  11. brantl says:
    November 15, 2006 at 9:43 am

    Kerry was right in the first place; until you’re talking about taking a man out of a hostile country, what difference is there between running down an international criminal and a terrorist? Zip. Do the police have firefights with suspects? Yes, when a bust isn’t optimal. Do terrorists get taken without firefights, sure they do, when the ‘capture’ is optimal? Are they ready to shoot him in both cases? Of course they are. ‘Capture’, ‘bust’? Real big difference there. What you may do in prosecution may be different (it seems the Supreme Court disagrees that they are) but how you get them uses the same strategies and tactics. Kerry was right from the get-go.

    Reply
  12. rationaljim says:
    November 15, 2006 at 12:15 pm

    This is in response to Campbell:
    Yeah, the Israeli strategy has really worked, hasn’t it? How long will they continue to live in fear of the next bomber?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Recent Articles
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
    • And, the Vertical Landing
    • NLOS-LS Missile Fail Could Impact Navy’s LCS
    • JFCOM’s JOE Whacks Defense Industry
    • New F-35B Hover Video
    • China’s Shipbuilding in a Regional Context
    • Debating the Pros and Cons of LCS
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
    Recent Comments
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      Actually, I think the Marine Aviation is better...
      @Earlydawn
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      This is quite the disaster. I hope that common sense...
      @Earlydawn
    • South of the Border Mayhem
      Committing resources, doesn't mean sending troops into...
      Thunder350
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
      Lockheed and Boeing: working both ends of a bent over taxpayer....
      John
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      Actual costs of the F-22 are now down to about $110M per...
      Dan
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      We need to put an end to the defense contractor corporate...
      John
    • Army Fast Tracks GPS Mortar Round
      I beg to differ about mortar being more...
      Gunnery Instructor
    • Army Fast Tracks GPS Mortar Round
      The cost would likely (eventually) be much less...
      Gunnery Instr
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      Ridiculous. Thanks goodness that F22 line hasn't...
      Robert
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      …or the Army and Marines could just develop...
      czech_6
  • Channels:Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty |Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money |Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network:Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz |SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps |Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program |Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy |User Agreement| © 2010 Military Advantage