No, we need a three war strategy! And more asbestos!

For two decades, the Pentagon has maintained that it could fight two wars at the same time.

An early draft of the Pentagon's new strategy, The New York Times reported, said the military would only be able to win one war and spoil an adversary's efforts in a second war

Well, considering how stellar our success has been in Iraq and Afghanistan, going from being able to fight two wars at once to being able to win one at not los the second seems to be quite an improvement.

So you wanna fight TWO wars and win both?

Using whose army, sunshine?

/Don't hate me because I live in reality land.

"I'd be worried about an administration using that term which is really pretty ridiculous," said Elliot Cohen, a professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University. "I'm a military historian and I've never seen that word used as a strategic objective of a national power."

What's this guy's problem? to spoil their objective would be like what the afghans did to the Russians... or us.. What's wrong with that?

"Abandoning a two-regional-conflict strategy is a recipe for disaster," said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Dave Deptula, who designed the air campaign for the 1991 Persian Gulf War. "All it does is encourage adventurism on the part of ... potential adversaries out there who want to take advantage of any sign of weakness in the U.S.' commitment."

Well we were in two wars for a long time, yet no potential adversary took advantage of our inability to stage a third war.

I think the real problem here is that President Fart has failed to come up with a way to have infinite wars happening at the same time.

With eleven carrier groups, you'd think we could handle six, eight wars with no problemo. Figure in the nukes on the subs, in the airplanes and on the ships, and you're cooking with some real gas.

/Eight war strategy!

HotWingConspiracy: "Abandoning a two-regional-conflict strategy is a recipe for disaster," said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Dave Deptula, who designed the air campaign for the 1991 Persian Gulf War. "All it does is encourage adventurism on the part of ... potential adversaries out there who want to take advantage of any sign of weakness in the U.S.' commitment."

Well we were in two wars for a long time, yet no potential adversary took advantage of our inability to stage a third war.

I think the real problem here is that President Fart has failed to come up with a way to have infinite wars happening at the same time.

I like that. IT ENCOURAGES ADVENTURISM! Yeah, like there's all these countries out there on America's big, hard-to-defend land borders just waiting to invade. Be afraid! We are surrounded on all sides by enemies!

For fark's sake, the last country that tried was Japan, and in terms of actual, tangible effect on the country (as opposed to the "we're going to fark you to death with the most horrifying weapons ever devised by man" effect it incited in terms of the national consciousness) Pearl Harbor was basically pissing on the US' rug.

We need to be prepared to a reasonable and realistic level. Right now we're over-prepared in some ways and under-prepared in others. I have every faith in the ability of the defense industry to spin back up in record time in the event two wars happen at the same time.

Headso: said Elliot Cohen

Because war-mongering Jewish neocon professors (new window) know how to fight wars and what it takes to win them.

/At what point does two wars morph into one giant, never-ending war that pits the rest of the world against us because we've become such an unremitting pain in everyone's ass?

HotIgneous Intruder: Because war-mongering Jewish neocon professors (new window) know how to fight wars and what it takes to win them.

FTFM to include link.

brigid_fitch: I was listening to a retired general this morning who agreed the 2-war strategy is obsolete. He pointed out that the Iraq & Afghan wars were fought mostly via intelligence & precision strikes. The "Storm the beaches!" mentality doesn't work anymore. As such, we don't need as many bodies or munitions. We need technology & highly-skilled people able to wield it from afar.

We thought the same thing after WWII until June, 1950.

Headso: What's this guy's problem? to spoil their objective would be like what the afghans did to the Russians... or us.. What's wrong with that?

Neocon Herr Professor Cohen has never met a possible war with anti-Israeli people or nation-states he didn't like.

one of Ripley's Bad Guys: The "Storm the beaches!" mentality doesn't work anymore.

That's because the troops are delivered by charter flights run by contractors.
Higgins boats are obsolete.

HotIgneous Intruder: one of Ripley's Bad Guys: The "Storm the beaches!" mentality doesn't work anymore.

That's because the troops are delivered by charter flights run by contractors.
Higgins boats are obsolete.

For only a slightly higher cost, we don't need to get on the 6-8 month waiting list for a C-17 or C-5.

The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you.

Deptula complained that the Pentagon's strategy is being driven by number crunchers at the Office of Management and Budget.

"Some midlevel career bureaucrat in OMB figured out a dollar number to reduce the Defense Department by and so we jump to that number," he said.

Deptula said the right way to come up with a strategy is to ask this question: "What does the nation want to do in the context of security? And then making the determination in the adjustment of budget."

I see no way this could go wrong.

"Hey, don't worry about budget, what do you guys want to be able to do? Seriously, spare no expense."

We've been working pretty hard lately. Maybe we could let our "allies" cover the cost of any new wars that arise that don't directly threaten US territories.

South Korea I'm looking at you. And Europe, you deal with North Africa and Eastern Europe and Putin on your own.

Does that count the War on Drugs^TM?

HotIgneous Intruder: one of Ripley's Bad Guys: The "Storm the beaches!" mentality doesn't work anymore.

That's because the troops are delivered by charter flights run by contractors.
Higgins boats are obsolete.

My point was that in the late 40's we had the bomb and thought the next war would be atomic. Our initial showing against the North Koreans did not go well until they had us boxed in on Pusan and the FEAF started savaging their long supply lines.

Our enemies are not going to fight our strengths, unless they are complete fools like Saddam.

one of Ripley's Bad Guys: brigid_fitch: I was listening to a retired general this morning who agreed the 2-war strategy is obsolete. He pointed out that the Iraq & Afghan wars were fought mostly via intelligence & precision strikes. The "Storm the beaches!" mentality doesn't work anymore. As such, we don't need as many bodies or munitions. We need technology & highly-skilled people able to wield it from afar.

We thought the same thing after WWII until June, 1950.

farking this. we can't tell what the next war will bring until it is here.

adaptability is key.

one of Ripley's Bad Guys: Our enemies are not going to fight our strengths, unless they are complete fools like Saddam.

Desert Storm was one of the soundest ass-kickings in history.

Oh a larger navy and assets in the Middle East and Asia? This actually sounds like practical. Somalia is the world's largest supplier of pirates, but the whole Indonesian/Malaysia archipelago is a close number two. Also a lot of the world's trade flows through both those places. So even in peace time a new run of DDGs could make themselves useful in a lot of ways.

Europe isn't really needed, aside from the fact its useful for us to have a couple places to refuel. With France and Germany being economically aligned now, they can get off their asses if the Russians decide to get expansionist again.

Basically as the first Tanker War with Iran showed or the First Gulf War, it's easier just to kick their ass with cruise missiles and maybe slap them across the face a couple times. Then bail. Much nicer than how the Second Gulf War went down.

No educated person could work for me who could not tear and burn the order of battle - for he would be a liar of 2 war deception. The Pentagon is only using 2 of the 4 existing wars available to them.

+1 x +1 = +1 as if a male value and
-1 x -1 = -1 as if a female opposite,
Hell awaits those who add these.

There are 4 simultaneous wars!

Mad_Radhu: No educated person could work for me who could not tear and burn the order of battle - for he would be a liar of 2 war deception. The Pentagon is only using 2 of the 4 existing wars available to them.

+1 x +1 = +1 as if a male value and
-1 x -1 = -1 as if a female opposite,
Hell awaits those who add these.

There are 4 simultaneous wars!

So you're saying the Pentagon needs to employ the TimeCube guy?

We need a bigger Air Force, bigger Navy, and replace the Army and Marines with small, flexible, rapid deployment SF units. We could cut the size of the armed forces by 30% this way, while increasing our reach and military dominance.

We should be crushing our enemies from afar with superior technology, not sending warm bodies in to serve as handy targets.

There is some good that can come from this if they do it right. The first people the Army and Marines need to cut from their ranks are single parents and women who get pregnant.

That all by itself would give you a smaller force without impacting readiness. Also you would save a lot of money in dependent childcare and ob/gyn maternity expenses.

Of course the troll in me would like to point out that perhaps Democrrats want to reduce the size of military because they still have trouble breaking 40% among military voters in Presidential elections-solution fewer military voters.

Link (new window)

Occam's Nailfile: We need a bigger Air Force, bigger Navy, and replace the Army and Marines with small, flexible, rapid deployment SF units. We could cut the size of the armed forces by 30% this way, while increasing our reach and military dominance.

A huge thing to do would be to wipe out all the jobs that don't need someone trained and in uniform to do. If your job is driving a forklift all day, or being a secretary at a hospital, or getting trucks setup for people's PCS, we can hire a civilian and get the same work at less cost. Some bases are already leaning this way, but pushing hard to eliminate most non-combat jobs that can be done by civvies would be a huge boon to the military.

hasty ambush: Of course the troll in me would like to point out that perhaps Democrrats want to reduce the size of military because they still have trouble breaking 40% among military voters in Presidential elections-solution fewer military voters.

Link (new window)

It has been pointed out a gazillion times that poll is not reliable at all.

So derp on brother.