[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?