Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
July 5, 2005
Pentagon Weighs Strategy Change to Deter Terror
By THOM SHANKER and ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON, July 4 - The Pentagon's most senior planners are challenging the longstanding strategy that requires the armed forces to be prepared to fight two major wars at a time. Instead, they are weighing whether to shape the military to mount one conventional campaign while devoting more resources to defending American territory and antiterrorism efforts.
The consideration of these profound changes are at the center of the current top-to-bottom review of Pentagon strategy, as ordered by Congress every four years, and will determine the future size of the military as well as the fate of hundreds of billions of dollars in new weapons.
The intense debate reflects a growing recognition that the current burden of maintaining forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with the other demands of the global campaign against terrorism, may force a change in the assumptions that have been the foundation of all military planning.
The concern that the concentration of troops and weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan was limiting the Pentagon's ability to deal with other potential armed conflicts was underscored by Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a classified risk assessment to Congress this spring. But the current review is the first by the Pentagon in decades to seriously question the wisdom of the two-war strategy.
The two-war model provides enough people and weapons to mount a major campaign, like the Persian Gulf war of 1991 or the invasion of Iraq in 2003, while maintaining enough reserves to respond in a similar manner elsewhere.
An official designation of a counterterrorism role and a shift to a strategy that focuses on domestic defense would have a huge impact on the size and composition of the military.
In a nutshell, strategies that order the military to be prepared for two wars would argue for more high-technology weapons, in particular warplanes. An emphasis on one war and counterterrorism duties would require lighter, more agile forces - perhaps fewer troops, but more Special Operations units - and a range of other needs, such as intelligence, language and communications specialists.
Again, as you know, the key word in the piece and in the discussion is CONVENTIONAL. As you say, the other threats are more nuclear or NON-conventional. The two war strategy requires us to be able to fight two large CONVENTIONAL wars (i.e. the "balloons" going up in both Germany and Korea).CSM said:...conventional or even nuclear conflict....
freeandfun1 said:Again, as you know, the key word in the piece and in the discussion is CONVENTIONAL. As you say, the other threats are more nuclear or NON-conventional. The two war strategy requires us to be able to fight two large CONVENTIONAL wars (i.e. the "balloons" going up in both Germany and Korea).
I totally agree that China is a major concern. But I also believe it would be very suicidal to try and fight them in a "conventional" war. They would outnumber us something like 15 to 1. Any war with China will likely be at arm's length using aircraft, cruise missiles, etc. And, most likely, would deteriorate into a nuclear conflict. Same goes in the ME. I don't believe we will ever attempt to invade Iran, but we will likely conduct covert ops combined with targeted attacks via aviation assets, UAV's and again, missiles. If any Arab nations ever attack Israel it will most likely be a non-conventional attack. Furthermore, as history indicates, we would NOT go to Israel's support in a direct, conventional force manner. We have always let them fight their own battles with us providing support. I believe the same would hold true. Other areas where our military will be needed are areas where they would be used as "Policemen" and "Peace keepers" - again, non-conventional use.
gop_jeff said:I think it's perfectly acceptable to redefine our capability goals from time to time. The two-front war was a Cold War relic, and Rumsfield should be commended for his ability to see past that.
I think it's fine to redefine our capabilites as fighting one conventional war and one non-conventional war. Besides, how many other countries on Earth can do that?
Good call...hard to find the right balance but the combination of high tech gear, economic and industrial strength, and highly trained professional military is and will be a winning combination....if the will of the American people is added to that list, we are unbeatable.gop_jeff said:I think it's perfectly acceptable to redefine our capability goals from time to time. The two-front war was a Cold War relic, and Rumsfield should be commended for his ability to see past that.
I think it's fine to redefine our capabilites as fighting one conventional war and one non-conventional war. Besides, how many other countries on Earth can do that?
CSM said:Good call...hard to find the right balance but the combination of high tech gear, economic and industrial strength, and highly trained professional military is and will be a winning combination....if the will of the American people is added to that list, we are unbeatable.
gop_jeff said:And that is the job of the CinC, IMO - to show the nation why war is necessary, especially in the light of those who would rather stick their heads in the sand or seek to "understand" the "root causes" of the "freedom fighters."
CSM said:It is rather naive to ignore China, especially with their developing interests in Africa and elsewhere. The Chinese are not insignificant. The Middle East could also turn into a huge conventional or even nuclear conflict if one (or a coalition) of Arab states decide to take care of Israel once and for all. Iran, Jordan, Syria and the rest could present a sizeable problem if they decide to join forces. As the US military is learning, smart bombs and smart weapons are not always the answer, and though I have great faith in our Air Force, it takes a combined teeam to win any war, no matter what the level of conflict.
The quandry really becomes that no matter which way they develop the force, the US has to be prepared to swing it's national assets and resources to fight the other contingency....Not sure we can do that with the reduction in manufacturing capacity we are experiencing lately and the tendency for the American people to reduce the size and corresponding cost of a peace time military.
There is considerable effort in all this military transformation to include "Global Reach" and "Global Strike" concepts. Of course, nothing is perfect, but such ideas should go a long way in easing the requirement for troops overseas.GunnyL said:I can agree with pretty-much all of your points, and would like to add that we should consider the necessity of ALL forward deployed troops. We're STILL manning some old Cold War stations that while nice to have, are tying up manpower assets.
Along those lines, we need to rethink who our real allies are as opposed to our traditional ones were. Face it, France hasn't been our ally since the last time we bailed them out of one of their military debacles.
CSM said:There is considerable effort in all this military transformation to include "Global Reach" and "Global Strike" concepts. Of course, nothing is perfect, but such ideas should go a long way in easing the requirement for troops overseas.
These days, the US is finding it's "allies" capricious (at best). I think that is because as some of these nations were rebuilt after WWII, they truly feared becoming so reliant on the US that they would lose their soveriegnty....and in excessive reaction decided that not only should they hold the US at arms length but they should actively oppose cooperation.
France is rather strange all around. I never really understood their reluctance to participate militarily in NATO, for example.
CSM said:All true up to a point. If the Arab world decided to eliminate Israel, we would have to intervene and provide more than moral support. If at the same time, China decided to exert some of it's muscle, say against Taiwan, we would have the two front conventional war spoken of...at least initially. Remeber, even unconventional operations (SOF for example) are limited in scope and effect; that's why we use them.
Obviously, it is very difficult to predict what the next large scale conflict will look like....if only we had that crystal ball, eh?
CSM said:It is rather naive to ignore China, especially with their developing interests in Africa and elsewhere. The Chinese are not insignificant. The Middle East could also turn into a huge conventional or even nuclear conflict if one (or a coalition) of Arab states decide to take care of Israel once and for all. Iran, Jordan, Syria and the rest could present a sizeable problem if they decide to join forces. As the US military is learning, smart bombs and smart weapons are not always the answer, and though I have great faith in our Air Force, it takes a combined teeam to win any war, no matter what the level of conflict.
The quandry really becomes that no matter which way they develop the force, the US has to be prepared to swing it's national assets and resources to fight the other contingency....Not sure we can do that with the reduction in manufacturing capacity we are experiencing lately and the tendency for the American people to reduce the size and corresponding cost of a peace time military.
freeandfun1 said:Any new threats will likely be addressed with the use of air power, cruise missiles and special op's teams.
.....
Therefore, the "new" military needs to be able to address Korea conventionally while also being able to address more covert/special ops/air campaigns in other potential warfare areas.
xandy123 said:The arab states will never form any kind of coalition, the dictators and clerics that control those countires hate each other almost as much as they hate the united states. Even if they did band together "which they would never do" it is not in the intrests of the chinese to get involved it a conflict like that. They unlike communist russia do not want to play the cold war game of supporting your enemies enemies, they are becoming more and more capitalist each day and it is not good for an up and coming capitalist nation to go to war with another capitalist nation. Also, unlike the muslim states. China has the problem of mutually assured destruction to worry about. Also despite the recent gains made by the chinese in the economic playing field they are still far far behind the united states. Even if their army is huge they simply lack the military technology of the united states. They wont be a threat until they reach our level of economic success, something no country will be able to do.
