Does the United States Need the Ability to Fight 2 Ground Wars Simultaneously?
Republicans say, Yes. President Obama says, No.
Again I like the optics on this going into election season. The GOP’s candidate gets to make the case that blowing millions of dollars and throwing US soldiers into the meat grinders of foreign occupations makes us stronger. While President Obama gets to tell the truth.
President Obama unveiled his plan for a leaner, cheaper military Thursday in a briefing at the Pentagon. He said U.S. armed forces will retain the ability to fight terrorism and confront new threats from countries such as China and Iran.
“The tide of war is receding,” Obama said in prepared remarks. “But the question that this strategy answers is what kind of military will we need after the long wars of the last decade are over. And today, we’re moving forward, from a position of strength.”
The new strategy is the result of months of study at the Pentagon. It reflects a high-stakes, high-wire balancing act by Obama as he faces a more austere budget climate combined with continued high U.S. responsibilities at home and overseas.
The plan already has run into opposition from Republicans on Capitol Hill and GOP presidential candidates, citing concern about paring back the military. In addition, conservative defense analysts say the plan steps away from the l ongtime U.S. commitment to be able to wage two major wars simultaneously.
There is no overt mention in the Pentagon’s strategy document, however, that the U.S. is stopping its policy of being ready to fight two ground wars simultaneously, but the reduced size suggests that is the case.
Actually it does not suggest that the two wars strategy is done. Even with a two wars strategy, the military (Army especially) had to ramp up recruiting, hiring and training in order create the kind of capacity it needed to do Iraq. You could even say that even though there was a two wars strategy, it was not sufficient to do Afghanistan and Iraq at the same time. Not, of course, that Iraq needed a war. But resources were specifically moved from Afghanistan to Iraq, suggesting that even then we did not have the capacity to do two wars.
The other thing that doesn’t get mentioned here (although I have no idea where you got this from) is that it looks like the Army and the Marines are cutting back here, but some resources will shift to the Pacific Rim, suggesting that the Navy and AF will be getting new equipment to cover that.
The Republican hate machine is powered by war profiteering, There’s still plenty of jobs for contractors over there. They light their big fat cigars with $100 bills. Believe it.
Lazy blogging on my part. It was from an CNN email. I think I picked up on the 2 wars thing because the Wingnut press is already spinning it that way. They have the vapors, and that is a good thing.
Republicans asked for spending cuts, and Obama delivers (snicker).
The military cuts will be all the rage in the Southern GOP primaries. The pandering to the military will be thick. Much PAC money will be collected. And I bet it will fire up the Obama-hates-America-and-wasn’t-even-born-here crowd all over again.
That said, do we need to be able to fight two wars? It depends.
I’d like us to be strong, but the evidence so far is that if we have the capability, we will use it unwisely. Which will make us weaker than if we didn’t have the capability in the first place.