Skip to comments.Pentagon to abandon two-war strategy
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, its 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 Americas standing in the world? In practical terms, some analysts say that the shift has little meaning. In fact its less a shift, they argue, than a no duh announcement.
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
We haven’t really tried to win even one war since about Aug 1945.
“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
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?
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.
2. What makes you think that I am a democracy crusader?
3. Stop making Paul-bots look retarded.
“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.
That’s “one plus” more than Ron Paul wants them to be able to fight.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They abandoned the two-front capability under Clinton.
Government is too busy confiscating money from its producing citizens and throwing it to the parasites of all stripes.
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.
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.
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, well 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!
I have no interest in whether you learn the language.
I merely wanted to amuse those who do know the language.
“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”.
“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.
Good questions. They point out the difference between de facto and de jure.
WWII was defensive in the sense that it was brought to us. We did not go looking for it.
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
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”
send to bill
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.