Norman Schwarzkopf Quotes

Thinking about the war now and the occupation later is not an acceptable solution.

We’re not going to need as many people to do peacekeeping as we needed to fight the war.

I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place

We have to go in and win this war quickly, and then be prepared to help stabilize Iraq over an indefinite period, five to ten years, at a minimum, I believe, using a large fraction of American forces. This is a major undertaking that likely would require a total of 150,000 troops and could stay above 100,000 for several years

The possibility of the United States winning the war and losing the peace is real and serious

Someone should tell the president that U.S. forces would need to be in Iraq for two to five years, and they will not have an easy time there.

History will judge the war against Iraq not by the brilliance of its military execution, but by the effectiveness of the post-hostilities activities

America has wearied of Middle East War.

We have to bring stability to Iraq, otherwise we will be faced with a future dilemma of sending our loved ones into harms way to stop a civil war or the rise of a new tyrant born from the instability that we created.

To leave Afghanistan as a playground for terrorists and adventurers was simply not possible anymore.

We're not going to spread democracy at the business end of a M16 held by a 23 year old Marine.

Law stands mute in the midst of arms

If I had 50,000 additional troops here now, I believe I could substantially close the [civil] war in two weeks.

I don’t see why it would take more troops to occupy the country than to take down the regime.

I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war.

If you use weapons of war to bring about peace, you're going to have more war and destruction.

War as Napoleon knew it just not possible any more. However, we're very unlikely to accept or recognize 'world peace' even when we get it.

When you decide to get involved in a military operation in a place like Syria, you've got to be prepared, as we learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, to become the government, and I'm not sure any country, either the United States or I don't hear of anyone else, who's willing to take on that responsibility.

I’m not opposed to all wars; just dumb wars.

We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years … and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home … to live our own lives in peace. But there comes a time when soft power or talking with evil will not work where, unfortunately, hard power is the only thing that works.

We find ourselves in places in the world where our interests require, maybe, limited application of force, involved in strange missions, missions difficult to define and state criteria and exit strategies. So it's much more difficult now. It's not that clear.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots. Or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.

All wars are mishandled.

What I have learned about Afghanistan is that force carries more weight than anything else.

… the financial cost of a [military] strike isn’t a reason to acquiesce in mass murder in Syria.