Quote:
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)