US Military Considers Abandoning "Two-War" Capability

[jyl]

I've posted before about my concern that the Iraq war is damaging the US military.

Here is some news that adds to this concern.

According to the New York Times, the Pentagon is considering abandoning the policy of having a military capable of fighting and winning two conventional wars at the same time.

For decades, the "two-war" capability has been the US military's mission. The idea has been that we could fight and win a major conventional war in one part of the world (say, the Middle East) and have enough force in reserve to fight and defeat an enemy who took the opportunity to start a second major conventional war in another part of the world (say, Korea), the idea being that this would deter that second enemy from making trouble while we were dealing with the first enemy.

However, the war in Iraq has consumed so much of the US military's combat power for so long that some senior military leaders are suggesting that we don't actually have the ability to fight two major conventional wars at once, with the current budget and forces. Others are suggesting that the military's new requirement should be to simultaneously fight one major conventional war while conducting anti-terrorism/anti-insurgency actions elsewhere, instead of fighting two major conventional wars.

Such a policy change would be a big deal, since a military built for anti-insurgency would be different from a military built for fighting a conventional war. The first might require lots more special forces, intelligence gathering, language specialists, etc. The second might require lots more airpower, heavy armour, mechanized forces, artillery, etc. A force built for one kind of war might not be very good at the other kind of war.

So, I'm concerned that we could emerge from the Iraq war in 2 or 4 years with less war-fighting ability than before, or with a military redesigned for the wrong kind of war(s).

Is this a concern that anyone else shares?

[araine901]

who knows what they really want. I am in the Navy Reserve and we have been notified that there are big cutbacks in the future. In fact my unit is going to be disbanded. What is the pentegons end goal? I am confused.

[mikester]

I've been fearing the same concepts. I grew up on air force bases during the cold war where I witnessed monsterous war machines on a daily basis. B-52s, B-1s, F-15s, F-16s, F-4s, etc ...

I'm not saying that was the perfect military machine by any means and I'm not saying that what we have now isn't closer to the perfect military machine.

Here's my uneducated opinion;

Our military needs to be able to fight BOTH wars; we need to train for the guerilla warfare and tactics we're facing here (We faced them in Vietnam and Somalia to name a few stand outs) and we also need to have the ability to fight a large scale conventional war.

China has not proven to be our friend and it will not take great lengths to provoke the dragon. Just this week they sent us a very strongly worded statement saying we were entirely wrong to attempt to block their bid on Unocal. Wars have been started with much less I'm sure.

We are doing some amazing training and our military has made great strides in empowering it's mobile command base and front line leaders which I think is fantastic but we've sacrified our large scale ability. We have smarter and better weapons than ever before which lends substantial quality to our forces but quantity has a quality all it's own and it is largely unmatched when combined with our other qualities.

[djmcmath]

Originally posted by jyl
For decades, the "two-war" capability has been the US military's mission.

Actually, for about the last decade (at least since I've been formally studying military doctrine), we've only been advocating a "one and a half war" stance. For a good solid 40 years following WWII, the 2 war stance was in vogue. After the Berlin Wall fell, and Russia mostly fell apart, we realized that we didn't have much use for a military that could fight two major world powers in centralized locations. The terrorist threat was recognized, and strategic assets were shifted. So this headline is nothing new -- it's been advocated for at least the last 10 years by senior Navy leadership.

Sadly, the military (or at least, the chunk of it that I'm exposed to) is a bureaucracy that makes the Vogons look pretty efficient. We've been talking about anti-insurgent anti-terrorist small-scale close-combat littoral networked-battlefield super-efficient operations for the whole time I've been playing this silly game, yet we still deploy alert strategic nuclear submarines with the sole purpose of maintaining Mutually Assured Destruction and strategic deterrence. (sigh)

[M.D. Holloway]

Wasn't WWII two different wars at the same time?

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by LubeMaster77
Wasn't WWII two different wars at the same time?

from a U.S. perspective, there were 3 theatres: Europe, Pacific, Africa.

I have no doubt we can do it again if needed, but doubt we'll ever need to.

There will be a war with China, but it will be entirely economic, and sadly, since they are our bankers, we will lose.

this is entirely a "sci-fi/fantasy" scenario, but what happens when the Chinese start "buying" our government representatives, just as lobbyists do today.

[legion]

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa
what happens when the Chinese start "buying" our government representatives

You mean like Clinton?

...

The sad fact is that in a future conflict, we may not have the time to "ramp up" like we did for WWII.

[djmcmath]

I hate to agree with you Shaun, but I think that WWIII is in progress, and between the Asians and the Arabs, we're losing badly without even realizing it.

[techweenie]

Excerpted from yesterday's Borowitz Report:

"...Elsewhere, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan were forcing the Pentagon to rethink its ability to lie about two wars at the same time."

[djmcmath]

Ok, so let me get this straight: Because the Iraq war is bad, and because we can loosely tie a 15 year old doctrine shift into Iraq, then a reduction in military capability is also bad? So now, liberals are for more military, because conservatives are for Iraq? It's like we've picked sides on the issue based on a bizarre train of logic and the stance that our "opponent" took, rather than based directly on the issue.

You know, it used to be so simple, now nobody makes sense anymore. Can I be for a bigger military, but also for peace, and less foreign involvement?

[jyl]

The cynic in me says that we have to guard against the natural human tendency to prepare for the last war, since the next war frequently looks different from the last war.

Example:
- The Korean War was a conventional war with large-scale battles, armor, amphibious landings, etc.
- The Vietnam War was a counter-insurgency war with small unit patrols, lots of interaction with civilians, a long period of low-intensity conflict, etc.
- The Gulf War I was a conventional war with big armoured battles, lots of airpower, etc.
- The Iraq War has turned into a counter-insurgency with small units, civilian interaction, long period of conflict, etc.

I know I am over-simplifying here - there were major battles in Vietnam - but you see how the wars have alternated in character.

So if the military now decides to regear itself more to fighting Iraq/Vietnam-style wars, my cynical fear is that the next war will be an intense conventional war in the Korean/Gulf I-style. I have this image of lightly armed Special Forces getting blown away in major land battles.

I'm also kind of skeptical about how much use the bulk of the military really is for the "war on terrorism". What would the Marines do about bombs in subway trains, anyway? And should we be optimizing our military for long-term occupation/pacification missions like Iraq, or should we concentrate on not getting into those situations in the future?

I wonder if this isn't Pentagon higher-ups sniffing where the money is and chasing budgets.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by legion
You mean like Clinton?

...

The sad fact is that in a future conflict, we may not have the time to "ramp up" like we did for WWII.

I didn't mean Clinton, but would love to hear about it. Tell me more.

Also, please choose your words more carefully. Words like "fact" combined with "may" only detract from the validity of your argument.

[rcecale]

To break it down to basics, the US Military is simply an insurance policy.

1.) You pay lots of money for it, with the hopes you never have to use it.

2.) The more you have to use it, the higher the premiums become.

3.) It should be a "living" entity, meaning, you should always be updating it, tailoring it for your needs, both real and perceived.

4.) Downsizing the military can be equated to dropping some part of your insurance coverage. And we all know what happens when you do THAT.

Randy

[jyl]

I don't understand the logic of your comment, and am not sure it was directed to me anyway. But I'm not "picking sides" nor am I particularly "liberal" on this issue.

I think the world is becoming more, not less, dangerous; I think we need a more powerful, not a weaker, military; I think the active-duty Army needs more, not fewer, combat units; I think we should be spending more, not less, on the military. I've actually posted on this topic before.

At the same time, I think we should using that military wisely, and I don't feel the current Iraq War fits that description.

I see no contradiction between being for a bigger military and also being for peace and more carefully chosen foreign involvement.

An analogy: carrying a gun doesn't mean you try to use it as much as possible.

Originally posted by djmcmath
Ok, so let me get this straight: Because the Iraq war is bad, and because we can loosely tie a 15 year old doctrine shift into Iraq, then a reduction in military capability is also bad? So now, liberals are for more military, because conservatives are for Iraq? It's like we've picked sides on the issue based on a bizarre train of logic and the stance that our "opponent" took, rather than based directly on the issue.

You know, it used to be so simple, now nobody makes sense anymore. Can I be for a bigger military, but also for peace, and less foreign involvement?

[fintstone]

Face it...military folks would love to have an incredibly large, well paid, well equipped military....capable of fighting several wars at once. The war in Iraq is not making it any smaller or less capable....just the opposite. It is only illustrating how many troops are needed in a protracted occupying action where civilians prevent us from using our advantages. The painful truth is that wars and troops are expensive...and the American people have made it clear that they do not want to spend one more penny....Both Carter and Clinton greatly weakened the military and diverted money to programs which bought them votes. Both Reagan and Bush suffered politically by having to rebuild military capability due to the tremendous cost.
We certainly have enough air and naval assets to fight additional wars concurrently....unfortunately we don't always get to choose which type war we will fight.

[Moneyguy1]

fint

I think we agree on some points. Sadly, aircraft carriers and F22a fighters are not appropriate for the kind of situation that seems to be prevalent in today's "little" wars.

Have the people actually said they do not want to spend any more on defense? Don't know about Carter's cutbacks, but weren't Clinton's supposed to be due to the end of the "cold war"? Not certain but wasn't it called the "Peace Dividend"?

[fintstone]

The administration has suffered a great loss of support based on the growing deficiy which is mostly military related.

Most military professionals considered that the "peace dividend" was reaped under the significant, but measured cuts that Pres Bush Sr. made after the Berlin Wall fell. Clinton "loathed the military" and chose to continue the cuts/reengineering for eight more years.

[CRH911S]

The painful truth is that wars and troops are expensive...and the American people have made it clear that they do not want to spend one more penny....

When $ resources are thin, and it keeps getting pounded into your head that $ resources are thin it doesn't help to have contractors, developers, and elected politicians profiting at the expense of the military and especially the troops on the ground. This kind of stuff makes me skeptical. I don't know abut the rest of you.

[fintstone]

Resources are always thin in the military. It is by design. If there were a surplus...it would go into social programs to buy votes. I imagine that companies whose business is providing contractors are doing their best to make a profit....the same as any other company. The reason that they are making significant profits is mostly due to the cap on the size of the military. Someone has to do the remaining work...and I don't see many lining up to donate their time ands money.

[Moneyguy1]

No sir. Not even close.

A large part of the deficit is the administration's steadfast clinging to tax reductions in a time of war.

I agree about people donating time and money. There are posters here waving the flag and unwilling to don a uniform and help old Uncle Sam. We put in our time, it's their turn!!!

Semper Paratus!!