Delaware Liberal

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.

Exit mobile version