Posted on 01/03/2012 8:09:59 PM PST by JerseyanExile
The Pentagon appears to be on the cusp of abandoning a long-held strategic principle: that the US military should have the ability to wage two conventional wars simultaneously.
US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is expected to announce the results of a large-scale strategic overview Thursday that will instead call for the military to be able to fight one large conventional war, and act as a “spoiler” for potential enemies in any other conflict that might crop up.
In the new military parlance, it’s the “one-plus strategy.”
The news is expected to draw a great deal of buzz, but how important is this shift, really? And how will it impact America’s standing in the world? In practical terms, some analysts say that the “shift” has little meaning. In fact it’s less a shift, they argue, than a “no duh” announcement.
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
You are correct, this cut stuff so for is total BS, nothing more than a reduction in projected growth. A cut is when you say, let’s roll the baseline back to 2000.
It does show some sense. One of the big mistakes made by the U.K. at the beginning of World War 1 was they assuming that the Huns were just the latest crop of barbarians - that they'd roll over and die like the Dervishes, etc. "The War Will Be Over By Christmas" meant, "We'll win this one in months."
Needless to say, the Hun proved to be a lot more formidable than the Brits though in July and August of 1914.
It sounds to me like the Pentagon has learned from that overconfidence, and is trying to make sure it isn't duplicated in America.
"In other words, we give up any pretense of being a power." "The authors of this are whores if not traitors. Their loyalty is to their prostituted careers, not the country. If they cared about country, they would publicly resign rather than be complicit in this. Sell out your country and get a star."
Do we really have to flex our mussels and show the world that we can still fight a two front war? If China and Russia both attracted us we would not have enough ammo to kill all of Chinese foot soldiers and if the nukes were to fly it would be the end of this world as we know it. So instead we have 160 or more bases overseas in countries that do not recognize the human rights of women and children. It's a joke. The whole problem began in my opinion when we went into Europe and began to rebuild nations and what did we do with the spies and Nazis? We imported the scientist and copied the spy networks of Germany and Russia. We brought it home through operation paperclip and once the CIA got a taste for blood we went into Korea and then a little covert operation in Vietnam. And on and on. The USA has become a bully since WW2.
When did we go back to the two war doctrine? Under Clinton, we operated under the ‘win one major land war... and play defense in a second war’.
Which is pretty much what is being proposed.
So... I don’t remember President Bush ever rescinding that. Meaning that it never changed, thus this isn’t new.
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Obama: Mission Accomplished.
Started by Clinton/Aspin who lying claimed "we should be able to fight two wars at once"...instead of take on the whole rest of the world at once. ;-)
NO Cheers, unfortunately.
By the end of an Obama 2nd term, we’ll know all the service members by their first names, all 12 of them, 3 per branch.
And 6 will be Captains or Colonels bucking for Rear Admiral
or Brig. Gen.
Was it not under Queen V that the saying was the sun never set on the British empire? How was England forced to annex a country?
Great Britain 2.0.....fading into the sunset...the USA
“Do we really have to flex our mussels”
Now you are just showing your clam.
For any nation at any time NOT to be able to fight a two front war means that the first significant alliance against that nation will take it down. Preparedness is not the same as aggression. National defense is one of the VERY FEW specific Constitutional mandates to the the federal government. They are in breach of the contract, but then what else is new?
“So instead we have 160 or more bases overseas in countries that do not recognize the human rights of women and children. It’s a joke.”
In your initial post you complained that the US was imposing its system on other nations and cultures. Now you are complaining that we operate from countries which are not in accord with our system. Pick one position or the other. You cannot hold both without looking . . . logically inconsistent.
“The USA has become a bully since WW2.”
I would say off and on since the Trail of Tears, but that is another issue for another day, and is irrelevant to national DEFENSE.
You'd be much happier with steamed mussels.
I am profoundly saddened. That the US has fallen from what had once been its unassailable perch as greatest military power ever is not mere talk anymore, has hit home in a very demonstrative, emphatic way. Give the Pentagon great credit for acknowledging the sober reality of its newly-realized limitations in repositioning ourselves to dealing with crises that we will face in the truthfulness, honesty it demands.
That includes all varieties of shellfish.
I would agree. Ever since Truman retired MacArthur from the Korean conflict and imposed the ‘limited war’ concept we have allowed ourselves to be handcuffed into not being allowed to win like we did in WWII.
read tag line
Agreed. Wars should be rare, swift and decisive.
Get over it.
And you did not see my tag? So get over it.
Absolutely amazing. No words!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.