Pentagon to abandon two-war strategy

Christian Science Monitor ^ | January 3, 2012 | Anna Mulrine

[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.

[HIDEK6]

I did see your tag.

I have no interest in whether you learn the language.

I merely wanted to amuse those who do know the language.

[kearnyirish2]

“WWII was a defensive war on our part, fought on two fronts. Good thing we won, and there was no guarantee that we would.”

WWII was a completely offensive war on our part; our defenses consisted of 2 oceans, while we built ships & planes that carried the war to the enemies. Britain in 1940 fought a “defensive war”.

[kearnyirish2]

“They abandoned the two-front capability under Clinton.”

The cuts started towards the end of Bush I, after Gulf War I; I know people who were cut loose who had intended to go career.

[danielmryan]

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?

Good questions. They point out the difference between de facto and de jure.

[Psalm 144]

WWII was defensive in the sense that it was brought to us. We did not go looking for it.

[Cronos]

Why should we want to defend Taiwan anymore? Japan and S. Korea, I understand and say we should -- they are our ally. Taiwan on the other hand FUNDED the rise of mainland China -- they are the biggest investor in the mainland and are increasingly economically integrated.

Also the KMT had the same ideas about subjugating Tibet, the Spratley islands etc. as the chicoms did.

Taiwan had tied itself too close to the mainland -- defending someone from a dragon who raised and fed that dragon is senseless..

Japan and S. Korea we defend, but not Taiwan imho. I'm open to changing my mind if you can explain to me why we should defend them

[Cronos]

Actually, when America was still the colonies, George was titled: “George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, and so forth, Duke of Brunswick and Lüneburg, Archtreasurer and Prince-Elector of the Holy Roman Empire”

[danielmryan]

Thanks for the correction. I didn't know the claim to the throne of France was still being made at the time. You're right about the other titles.

[warsaw44]

send to bill

[pepsionice]

For over 150 years....we basically existed with a one-war strategy. This only changed in the 1950s after re-examining the whole landscape of WW II. The idea that we’d ever go back and repeat a two-war episode is questionable. Even now with Iraq and Afghanistan....we are in a patrol-mode rather than a war-mode....and it’s hard to say if we learned anything relating to two-war strategy from this whole experience.

[Cronos]

you are correct — 100% Debt to GDP is the beginning of the end. It is difficult to claw back, considering the huge repayments etc.

[Cronos]

no worries, we learn from each other.

[kearnyirish2]

I see what you mean.

[StonyBurk]

So do you think it right that other countries/systems come to America and seek to force America adopt their way of life? I can name two groups the reconquistadores of The United States of Mexico — and the bloody freakin’ Muslim who believe their system ought be accommodated by our declining power?

[StonyBurk]

You nailed it. Call the boys back at the Office and request after action report.

[G Larry]

I see you got my point about the importance of being able to fight wars on 2 fronts......

[guitarplayer1953]

No I don't think they should any more than I think we should have all these bases in other countries. Do you think that is a good idea to have all these bases? If so would you have a problem with those countries setting up military bases here in the USA?

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks grey_whiskers.

The key to fighting more than one war (without a draft) is to make it quick, using overwhelming superiority of firepower.

Of course, Zero’s only war is against the US, so there’s no need to fight more than one at a time.

[StonyBurk]

Bout as much problem as I have with other countries now doing flyovers over America.Oh they pay us so they can get flight time— but they also get real time experience that might prove necessary in the future. I do not believe we have military bases in any country that has NOT invited us.I would prefer we
regroup to reclaim that ideal set by George Washington about avoiding all foreign entanglements as much as possible” but some of them bases you refer to do serve strategic purpose as intel and restraint .

[StonyBurk]

Bout as much problem as I have with other countries now doing flyovers over America.Oh they pay us so they can get flight time— but they also get real time experience that might prove necessary in the future. I do not believe we have military bases in any country that has NOT invited us.I would prefer we
regroup to reclaim that ideal set by George Washington about avoiding all foreign entanglements as much as possible” but some of them bases you refer to do serve strategic purpose as intel and restraint .