Senator Webb on MSNBC’s Hardball: “Secretary Gates is correct” in warning about future ground wars

Senator Jim Webb, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that Secretary Gates was correct in his warning about future ground wars like Afghanistan or Iraq. During an interview yesterday with Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball program, Senator Webb said “the best way to address international terrorism is through mobility and maneuverability.” Senator Webb, a member of the Senate Committees on Foreign Relations and Armed Services, said that operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have diverted resources from United States’ true strategic priorities with Northeast and Southeast Asia.

The entire interview may be viewed online at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#41838085 and a transcript of the discussion is below:


HARDBALL TRANSCRIPT

MATTHEWS: Defense Secretary Robert Gates issued a sober warning against waging another major ground invasion like Afghanistan or Iraq, when he spoke to West Point cadets this Friday.

Senator Jim Webb is a Democrat from Virginia. He sits on the Armed Services Committee and was secretary of the Navy under President Reagan. Senator, sometimes somebody says something in Washington. It`s not just words. I was stunned by that.  What was your reaction?

SEN. JIM WEBB (D), VIRGINIA: Well, first of all, I think he’s the right person to be saying this because he has long experience in national security policy. He was Secretary of Defense under President Bush and he’s continued under President Obama. And we’re hearing a lot of wisdom and good advice.

I wrote a piece a day after 9/11, talking about my views on how you should fight international terrorism. I had one paragraph that said do not occupy territory, because in a situation such as international terrorism, you lose your maneuverability and you create situations where you have to go on defense to defend the territories that you occupied. So looking forward, what Secretary Gates is saying has a lot of wisdom to it.

MATTHEWS: What does it say about the current war in Afghanistan?

WEBB: There’s a concept in negligence law called assumption of duty. What that means is once we have assumed a duty in a certain way, we’re obligated to carry it out and I have been supportive of the strategy as they put it together.

But there comes a time, too, when you have to recognize that we’re in a little bit of mission creep in Afghanistan. There’s only so much we will be able to do until we leave. The best way to address international terrorism is through mobility and through maneuverability.

The other question that I`ve stated on many occasions is that the enormous amount of attention and national resources that have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan have drawn us away from our true strategic first priority, and that’s in Northeast and Southeast Asia. We have kind of lost the bubble over there.

I have spent a lot of time in that part of the world in my life. I just got back from a trip to Japan. We really need to focus again on our economic, security and cultural relations in Asia.

MATTHEWS: Could we have achieved the political ambitions of the previous administration after 9/11 without going to a war in Afghanistan? Could we have gone after effectively al Qaeda internationally without going into Afghanistan, for example?

WEBB: First of all, I’m one of those who strongly believes that the invasion of Iraq was a strategic blunder and it took our eye off of the way that we could have been dealing with situations in a number of other places.

I was in Afghanistan as a journalist in 2004. I spent most of my time with a Marine Corps unit over there. The way they were handling the situation, I think, was the way we should be doing it. They were a maneuverable force. They were out taking on the elements of the extremist Taliban and al Qaeda.

But the question becomes these larger scale occupations, and the political objectives that they have. I think Secretary Gates is correct in saying that in the future, there are probably better ways to do that.

MATTHEWS: Do you think the message -- I mean, I remember Douglas MacArthur saying never go into a land war in Asia after World War II and after Korea. And then we went ahead and did it in Vietnam. I mean, do we ever listen to these advisories from the experts?

WEBB: There are different moments in history where you put your military into places with different adversaries and in different schemes of operation. I believe that our involvement in Vietnam was appropriate.

If you listen to people like Lee Kuan Yew, the minister mentor of Singapore, he’s one of the brightest minds Asia has ever produced.  He was saying that what we did in Vietnam stabilized the region around Vietnam and allowed these incipient governmental systems coming out of colonialism to stabilize and allowed their economies to grow.

But what we have now is a war against international terrorism that requires an enormous amount of maneuverability. At the same time, we have the strategic objectives of the country, which are best served by strong Navy, technology, these sorts of things. And we need to have a valid ground element but not necessarily what we’re doing here.