Pentagon to Change Two-Front War-Fighting Strategy
By Paul Bedard, Washington Whispers
The Pentagon's two-front war-fighting strategy is going the way of the battleship: to the junkyard. A recognition of shrinking budgets and the reality that World War II isn't likely to repeat itself, the emerging plan will be a big change for the military. Marine Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, got the buzz rolling this month when he suggested that the developing plan would be to have the capability to fight smaller wars like in Iraq and Afghanistan and only one with a major "peer competitor" like China or Russia. The old two-war plan he dubbed an "extreme."
Want your Whispers first? Check out the U.S. News Weekly.
Follow Paul and Nikki on Twitter.
Read more Washington Whispers.
Tags: Pentagon
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (4) | Print
Reader Comments
How we fight not where
Unlike some, perhaps most, military experts I am relieved that our strategic and tactical military planning appears to be evolving away from where we will fight to how we will fight. Mutual assured destruction may continue to deter rational nation states but will have little or no effect on madmen and terrorists who promote their causes through irregular or asymmetrical warfare. Globalization and more recent economic turmoil suggest that perhaps the whole concept of "warfare" may have to be redefined to include more insidious methods of undermining and defeating a nation. Then again, maybe our tendency to evaluate or problem solve through dichotomous thinking (either-or) needs to be reconsidered.
al Qaeda in Saddam's Iraq
Though the evidence is conflicting on the al Qaeda, Saddam question there is a lot of evidence (see Gen. Caldwell and CIA Director George Tenet's comments) that al Qaeda was in areas of Saddam's domain in Iraq.
I've written about this extensively at www.regimeofterror.com and al Qaeda documents and detainees have openly said they have a presence in central and Sunni areas of Iraq while Saddam was in charge. The debate over relations with Saddam's regime is much more valid than if al Qaeda was in country.
Afganistan has become Obama's Bush Iraq
Leaving foreign policy up to the generals in the field guarantees perpetual war. That is what they do. Their job is war. Leaving it up to them guarantees continuation of war indefinately.
The commander in chief is supposed to be a civilian that makes war decisions him/herself once Congress has declared war. Leaving it up to the commanders in the field is abdicating the president's duty and guaranteeing perpetual war.
The evidence is clear that the Bin Laden's organization was not in Iraq before we overthrew the Saddam Hussein regime and then did not have enough sense to turn the country over to the Iraqis with their army intact.
Afganistan has never had a central government and no outside power has ever been able to do any more than run one war lord out and replace his following with the followers of another war lord and then reverse the process.
The Taliban that harbors Bin Laden's followers now has refuge in Pakistan and our small force trying to occupy Afganistan as a means of unifying that part of the world can only react to hit and run attacks from Pakistan. Without routing the Taliban and Bin Laden's followers from Pakistan, that "war" will never end. The cost in terms of money, lives, destruction will just continue with the present policy with or without a "surge".
advertisement
