Oh man, I beg to differ!
It’s not either isolationism or waging war on 2 or 3 fronts; a false choice.
“waging war on 2 or 3 fronts; a false choice.”
The last major war we were involved with was WW II. And that ended around 70 years ago. We have been putting out fires militarily since. So when we hit that 2 or 3 hot spot max we will be in a lot of trouble trying to support more.
We have military all over the world to support those “hot spots.”
For the army:
12,000 assigned to Afghanistan, 6,000 in Iraq mainly for support to Mosul, 750 in Syria with 1000 in the trucks ready to role, Kuwait has around 19,000 of which 3800 deployed from the 1st cav on their combat team arrived last last year, Somalia is supported by the 101st airborne.
Support troops for the areas are in Poland with 4th inf armored supporting Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary. And in South Korea we have around 23.500 of different branches posted.
And that’s just the army. The navy, marines, air force, and national guard are in other spots for support or lead of possible problems. We even have marines on the coast of Norway to control the Russian border problems we have there. And the amount of troops in Africa is sensitive.
I pray we keep them at just two or three....even at a time. Trying to support multiple locations will stretch our capacity so choices will have to be made that will not be in the peoples’ best interest at the location. They may have to fend for themselves.
We’re good, but we don’t do the impossible on a daily basis. Ever wonder why there are so many re-deployments downrange for soldiers so close together. You can’t fill a 5 gallon bucket with 3 gallons unless you use the same water.
rwood