Rethinking Two War Stance

Discussion in 'Military' started by Annie, Jul 5, 2005.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I wonder what you think, especially those that have served in the military. I guess I'm a bit perplexed, considering known threats at present, ie., NK, Iran...


    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/politics/05strategy.html?th&emc=th

     
  2. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    now you know why Rumsfeld's comment about going to war with the Army you have, not the one you want is so close to the truth. There is no way ANY military can prepare for EVERY contingency.
     
  3. freeandfun1
    Offline

    freeandfun1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,201
    Thanks Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +296
    We don't have the details of what they do plan, so it really is hard to comment. Based on some conversations I have had with some still on active duty, here is what I *think* they are planning...

    I believe that they believe that now that Iraq is pretty much under control (everything is relative - ok?!), the WoT is going to shift toward more of a special ops/covert operations type of mode. Therefore, the need to fight two conventional (that is the key word - conventional) wars is highly unlikely. North Korea is about the ONLY place on earth where we have two major conventional forces facing each other. Any new threats will likely be addressed with the use of air power, cruise missiles and special op's teams. The only way we will ever face another large conventional war is if we were to go to war in Korea or if Europe were to decay and you saw hostilities rise between European nations and is highly unlikely. 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.

    These are just my thoughts, but it makes sense to me. What about you other vets? Thoughts?
     
  4. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    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.
     
  5. freeandfun1
    Offline

    freeandfun1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,201
    Thanks Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +296
    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.
     
  6. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    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?
     
  7. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    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?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  8. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Wow, I agree with this! That's what I was sort of thinking. Iraq is going to require quite a number of troops for awhile now, from everything I'm reading. Yet, I don't think we have plans to take on another 'far' weaker nation for any reason at this time. If we did, it would be on the order of Afghanistan type activity.

    Iran, NK, China are all very different and I doubt numbers would be our largest problem.

    Thanks to all of you guys!
     
  9. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    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.
     
  10. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    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." :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page