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.
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.