• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

  • Policy Issues
    • Fact Sheets
    • Countries
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • Non-Proliferation
    • Nuclear Security
    • Biological & Chemical Weapons
    • Defense Spending
    • Missile Defense
    • No First Use
  • Nukes of Hazard
    • Podcast
    • Blog
      • Next Up In Arms Control
    • Videos
  • Join Us
  • Press
  • About
    • Staff
    • Boards & Experts
    • Jobs & Internships
    • Financials and Annual Reports
    • Contact Us
  • Donate
  • Search
You are here: Home / Middle East / Do We Still Need the Big Guns?

January 16, 2008

Do We Still Need the Big Guns?

by Travis Sharp

Published online in the New York Times on January 16, 2008

Re “We Still Need the Big Guns,” by Charles J. Dunlap Jr. (Op-Ed, Jan. 9):

To the Editor:

Many commentators have glorified Gen. David H. Petraeus’s counterinsurgency manual as the second coming of George Kennan’s famous “X” article.

This effusive praise is largely a consequence of our need to derive a political narrative from the fog of war.

Describing General Petraeus’s manual as the magnum opus of a great warrior-intellectual is a lot more compelling story line than calling it what it really is: a literary review comprised of abstract aphorisms.

Unfortunately, Charles J. Dunlap’s call for an “unapologetically high-tech military” is an either/or proposition that ignores the reality that high-tech military powers have been consistently defeated by low-tech insurgencies over the past 60 years.

America’s future enemies are likely to employ this style of war because they know it works. If the United States follows General Dunlap’s advice and “substitutes machines for the bodies of young Americans,” we will become more willing to go to war since our society will become even more divorced from war’s visceral cost in human lives.

Does anyone think that participating in more wars that we have proved historically incapable of winning sounds like a good idea?

Travis Sharp
Washington, Jan. 9, 2008

Posted in: Middle East

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • The Future of Arms Control: 2023 Annual Conference September 20, 2023
  • The Evolving Cyber-Based Threat: The Need for International Regulations to Avoid ‘Accidental’ Conflicts September 12, 2023
  • 전문가들 “김정은 방러, 전방위 군사 협력 현실화…중국 셈법 복잡” September 12, 2023
  • North Korea’s Kim Jong Un to meet with Vladimir Putin as Russia seeks closer military ties, more support for Ukraine war September 5, 2023
  • Biological threats have evolved for the worse, and we are not prepared September 1, 2023

Footer

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

820 1st Street NE, Suite LL-180
Washington, D.C. 20002
Phone: 202.546.0795

Issues

  • Fact Sheets
  • Countries
  • Nuclear Weapons
  • Non-Proliferation
  • Nuclear Security
  • Defense Spending
  • Biological and Chemical Weapons
  • Missile Defense
  • No First Use

Countries

  • China
  • France
  • India and Pakistan
  • Iran
  • Israel
  • North Korea
  • Russia
  • United Kingdom

Explore

  • Nukes of Hazard blog
  • Nukes of Hazard podcast
  • Nukes of Hazard videos
  • Front and Center
  • Fact Sheets

About

  • About
  • Meet the Staff
  • Boards & Experts
  • Press
  • Jobs & Internships
  • Financials and Annual Reports
  • Contact Us
  • Council for a Livable World
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
  • Facebook

© 2023 Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
Privacy Policy

Charity Navigator GuideStar Seal of Transparency