Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pentagon to abandon two-war strategy
Christian Science Monitor ^ | January 3, 2012 | Anna Mulrine

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 ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: defense; nationaldefense
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last

1 posted on 01/03/2012 8:10:04 PM PST by JerseyanExile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

We haven’t really tried to win even one war since about Aug 1945.


2 posted on 01/03/2012 8:11:25 PM PST by ClearCase_guy (Nothing will change until after the war. It's coming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

“He who wishes to fight must first count the cost. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men’s weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue... In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.”

-Sun Tzu, the Art of War


3 posted on 01/03/2012 8:14:08 PM PST by Psalm 144 (Voodoo Republicans: Don't read their lips - watch their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

shhhh.......!!!

What if Iran and China hear you!!!

Mid-East & Taiwan would be 2 fronts....

Hey, maybe if we elect a President who doesn’t HATE AMERICA, we can revisit this policy?


4 posted on 01/03/2012 8:14:26 PM PST by G Larry ("I dream of a day when a man is judged by the content of his Character.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile
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.

5 posted on 01/03/2012 8:14:26 PM PST by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Amen.


6 posted on 01/03/2012 8:15:05 PM PST by doc1019 (Romney will never get my vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
Why do you believe that it is our right to go into countries through out the world and force our doctrine of life on them? The founding fathers would of thought of this doctrine akin to what England would and wanted to do in their day.
7 posted on 01/03/2012 8:21:03 PM PST by guitarplayer1953 (Grammar & spelling maybe wrong, get over it, the world will not come to an end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953
Why do you believe that it is our right to go into countries through out the world and force our doctrine of life on them? The founding fathers would of thought of this doctrine akin to what England would and wanted to do in their day.
1. What does this have to do with having the ability to fight two wars?

2. What makes you think that I am a democracy crusader?
3. Stop making Paul-bots look retarded.

8 posted on 01/03/2012 8:23:33 PM PST by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953; rmlew

“Why do you believe that it is our right to go into countries through out the world and force our doctrine of life on them?”

I don’t see where rmlew is saying that. WWII was a defensive war on our part, fought on two fronts. Good thing we won, and there was no guarantee that we would.


9 posted on 01/03/2012 8:25:15 PM PST by Psalm 144 (Voodoo Republicans: Don't read their lips - watch their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

That’s “one plus” more than Ron Paul wants them to be able to fight.


10 posted on 01/03/2012 8:28:07 PM PST by null and void (Day 1078 of America's ObamaVacation from reality [Heroes aren't made, Frank, they're cornered...])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953

I’m not sure what he truly believes, but I am of the belief that our federal government has one primary mission, and that SHOULD be the defense of our country, and if that means having an enormous and costly military whose primary purpose nowadays may be deterrence, I’m all for it.

Of course, our military should be prepared for practically any situation, including being able to handle two “wars” at once if necessary.

However, our military should also be prepared to call up, through a draft, whatever numbers are necessary in a major conflict, but of course that should probably only be as a last resort.

In the end, I’m NOT of the opinion our military is a tool used to force our “doctrine” upon the rest of the world, and indeed that would be foolish in the extreme, particularly with the weapons of war now available on any “side”.

Once again, the left is gutting our military and shifting those resources to , what else, entitlements. I wonder how our founding fathers would feel about THAT.


11 posted on 01/03/2012 8:34:40 PM PST by Pox (Good Night. I expect more respect tomorrow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

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.


12 posted on 01/03/2012 8:34:40 PM PST by Rembrandt (.. AND the donkey you rode in on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144
His statement with “In other words, we give up any pretense of being a power.” And my response what give us the right to go into any country and force our will upon them through our actions of stick and carrot? We have sown so much hatred since ww2 through out the world by the action of our CIA and their limited covert operations taking down governments and training one group today and tomorrow they are our enemies. We have become what England was an arrogant power full of dead mans bones.
13 posted on 01/03/2012 8:36:52 PM PST by guitarplayer1953 (Grammar & spelling maybe wrong, get over it, the world will not come to an end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

As soon as ObastardCare sets its roots deep into American society, we won’t be able to afford to wage war on a single front. Much less afford an entire war.


14 posted on 01/03/2012 8:37:16 PM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rmlew

If we -are- that depleted, the fact should not be public knowledge.

If we are -not- that depleted, this declaration is contrary to national interests and invites aggression.

Either way, such decisions and policies should be classified.


15 posted on 01/03/2012 8:37:48 PM PST by Psalm 144 (Voodoo Republicans: Don't read their lips - watch their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

THe US FEderal Government ended the 2011 year with 100.3% Debt to GDP.

Every Single Federal Program Must Be Cut by 40% Before Individual Programs Are Targeted Just to Not Increase The National Debt.

I keep getting beaten up by freepers over the matter, but reality is reality. The DoD must be cut by 40%, I’d rather give up the two war strategy than TriCare, the VA budget and the GI Bill.

But something has to go.


16 posted on 01/03/2012 8:38:48 PM PST by JerseyHighlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

They abandoned the two-front capability under Clinton.


17 posted on 01/03/2012 8:41:01 PM PST by snowrip (Liberal? You are a socialist idiot with no rational argument.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

Government is too busy confiscating money from its producing citizens and throwing it to the parasites of all stripes.


18 posted on 01/03/2012 8:43:31 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953

I don’t disagree that we have been too active in gunboat diplomacy, military adventures and ‘nation building’, and ultimately to our detriment - after all: here we are, as we are.

But I do not see that in rmlew’s post. Being a power does not require abuse of that power, no more than health and strength compels aggression.


19 posted on 01/03/2012 8:43:46 PM PST by Psalm 144 (Voodoo Republicans: Don't read their lips - watch their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953
The founding fathers would of thought of this doctrine akin to what England would and wanted to do in their day.

A side comment. Do you know who wrote these words? "It is not in our custom to [annex] countries unless we are obliged & forced to do so."

It was Queen Victoria. [Ref.] Here's some more trivia for you: at the early height of the British Empire, the Sovereign was not an Emperor. Even when America was still the colonies, George III was titled King of the United Kingdon of England, Scotland and Ireland. Formally, Queen Victora was only Queen of the U.K. and Empress of India.

20 posted on 01/03/2012 8:53:17 PM PST by danielmryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JerseyHighlander

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.


21 posted on 01/03/2012 9:00:17 PM PST by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by "AMNESTY" Newt, Willard, Perry and nervous supporters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile
This one-plus strategy, to me, looks like subtle saber-rattling at Iran. It says, "You think we're going to divide our forces and only half-fight? Better think again."

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.

22 posted on 01/03/2012 9:01:17 PM PST by danielmryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144
Maybe I miss read his post so here it is

"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.

23 posted on 01/03/2012 9:08:45 PM PST by guitarplayer1953 (Grammar & spelling maybe wrong, get over it, the world will not come to an end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

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.


24 posted on 01/03/2012 9:10:25 PM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...

The list, Ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/


25 posted on 01/03/2012 9:11:03 PM PST by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

Obama: Mission Accomplished.


26 posted on 01/03/2012 9:13:08 PM PST by Pan_Yans Wife ("Real solidarity means coming together for the common good."-Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile; neverdem; SunkenCiv; decimon; AmericanInTokyo; AnAmericanAbroad; Jeff Head; ...
Treason.

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.

27 posted on 01/03/2012 9:14:57 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rembrandt

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.


28 posted on 01/03/2012 9:15:14 PM PST by unkus (Silence Is Consent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 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?


29 posted on 01/03/2012 9:18:54 PM PST by guitarplayer1953 (Grammar & spelling maybe wrong, get over it, the world will not come to an end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

Great Britain 2.0.....fading into the sunset...the USA


30 posted on 01/03/2012 9:27:01 PM PST by blasater1960 (Deut 30, Psalm 111...the Torah and the Law, is attainable past, present and forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953

“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.


31 posted on 01/03/2012 9:33:03 PM PST by Psalm 144 (Voodoo Republicans: Don't read their lips - watch their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953
Do we really have to flex our mussels

You'd be much happier with steamed mussels.

32 posted on 01/03/2012 9:35:29 PM PST by HIDEK6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

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.


33 posted on 01/03/2012 9:38:50 PM PST by lbryce (BHO:The bastard offspring of Satan and Medusa.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HIDEK6

That includes all varieties of shellfish.


34 posted on 01/03/2012 9:40:22 PM PST by lbryce (BHO:The bastard offspring of Satan and Medusa.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

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.


35 posted on 01/03/2012 9:40:45 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HIDEK6

read tag line


36 posted on 01/03/2012 9:42:24 PM PST by guitarplayer1953 (Grammar & spelling maybe wrong, get over it, the world will not come to an end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

Agreed. Wars should be rare, swift and decisive.


37 posted on 01/03/2012 9:48:07 PM PST by Psalm 144 (Voodoo Republicans: Don't read their lips - watch their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953
I was jesting at your expense. No big deal. The world will not end.

Get over it.

38 posted on 01/03/2012 9:49:49 PM PST by HIDEK6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: HIDEK6

And you did not see my tag? So get over it.


39 posted on 01/03/2012 9:53:02 PM PST by guitarplayer1953 (Grammar & spelling maybe wrong, get over it, the world will not come to an end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

Absolutely amazing. No words!


40 posted on 01/03/2012 9:57:19 PM PST by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953
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.

41 posted on 01/03/2012 10:00:20 PM PST by HIDEK6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144

“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”.


42 posted on 01/03/2012 10:02:08 PM PST by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: snowrip

“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.


43 posted on 01/03/2012 10:06:13 PM PST by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953
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.

44 posted on 01/03/2012 10:07:43 PM PST by danielmryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

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


45 posted on 01/03/2012 10:10:34 PM PST by Psalm 144 (Voodoo Republicans: Don't read their lips - watch their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
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

46 posted on 01/03/2012 10:54:30 PM PST by Cronos (Party like it's 12 20, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: danielmryan

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”


47 posted on 01/03/2012 11:01:56 PM PST by Cronos (Party like it's 12 20, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
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.
48 posted on 01/03/2012 11:11:27 PM PST by danielmryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: warsaw44

send to bill


49 posted on 01/03/2012 11:23:18 PM PST by warsaw44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rmlew

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.


50 posted on 01/03/2012 11:37:59 PM PST by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson