Wall Street Journal: Joint Chiefs Chairman Nominee Says Russia Is Top Military Threat
Marine Commandant Joe Dunford says Ukraine can’t counter Russian aggression without lethal military assistance.
WASHINGTON—Gen. Joe Dunford, President Barack Obama’s nominee to become the Pentagon’s top military officer, said Thursday he believes Russia poses the biggest threat to U.S. national security and that Ukraine won’t be able to counter Russian aggression unless it is provided with lethal military assistance.
Amid potential threats that include China, Islamic State, Iranian influence across the Middle East and other challenges at home and abroad, Gen. Dunford singled out Russia for its nuclear capability and its recent history of aggression as presenting the gravest threat to the U.S.
“If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, you’d have to point to Russia,” Gen. Dunford said during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
More News On Joint Chiefs Nominee Remarks That 'Russia is Top Military Threat'
Russia is top U.S. national security threat: Gen. Dunford -- Reuters
Russia is biggest threat to US national security, Joint Chiefs nominee tells Congress -- US News and World Report
Joint Chiefs nominee: Russia greatest threat to U.S. -- CNN
Joint Chiefs Nominee Warns of Threat of Russian Aggression -- NYT
Incoming Joint Chiefs chairman calls Russia, China top threats -- Military.com
Joint Chiefs Nominee: Russia, China Biggest Threats to US -- VOA
Russia is top threat to national security, US general says -- BBC
Obama's pick for joint chiefs chairman sides with Mitt Romney on Russia -- The Guardian
Russia is greatest threat to the U.S., says Joint Chiefs chairman nominee Gen. Joseph Dunford -- Washington Post
7 comments:
Glad to see the general recognizes the Russian threat, at least on some level. Oh well we need to start somewhere.
Now where we move from here is the most important question. Frankly, even with all the "lethal" weapons assistance we can muster there's no way for Ukraine to counter Russia. Us providing this assistance would only risk getting us in a war with Russia that we cannot afford, serves no real US interests, places the lives of our citizens in even graver danger than they are already under, and we cannot possibly win without some kind of divine miracle.
As such, the general and his boss need to be working on a plan to extricate us form Ukraine and probably Eastern Europe forthwith.
They certainly should extricate US from the Ukraine and Eastern Europe and maybe even the rest of the world. The biggest threat to the US and world peace for that matter is the USA.
Actually a far bigger threat to world peace would seem to be groups like ISIS and Iran. Iran's calling card is "death to America." If US leaders of any importance called for the genocide of another country, they'd be hauled very quickly before various UN tribunals. Apparently Iran can do such things with impunity. Additionally, Iran has the backing of Russia and China, the world's most powerful countries. ISIS has captured and held territory at a more rapid rate and held it more efficiently than the US ever could have even before its military was worn down from continuing operations around the world. As such, it would seem to me that Russia, China, Iran, and ISIS are bigger threats to world peace than America is.
Actually extricating the US from Ukraine and Eastern Europe should not be because the US is any sort of threat to world peace but because this makes more sense for our own national security needs and properly deploying our forces gives us the greatest utility for doing this. While it's understandable that countries in Eastern Europe might want some kind of assistance from outside, we simply are not in a realistic position to be able to provide this at this time.
As for withdrawing from the rest of the world, I'd certainly look at withdrawing from Japan and South Korea. These forces are needed for our national defense needs and having them there, while likely offering enormous benefits to these countries as the foreign governments allow them to remain, it does have costs. In some cases it strains relations with locals of these countries. As such, I'd look at redeploying these forces on a time scale that will maximize our own national security and hopefully without endangering the security of these nations, however, it does need to be made clear that America's national security will and must come first. In other words, our forces are NOT the property of nations like Japan and South Korea.
While the US is far from perfect as all countries, to call it the biggest threat to world peace is to assign it more power than it really has. Generally speaking if the goal is to demonize someone or something this is a place where it is often started. Overstate its power and influence and it becomes easier to demonize. It is understandable why many would believe this as US enemies are much more effective at using the media and various communication tools to get their message out than the US is.
Im not going to go into depth but do not remove troops from south korea!!!!
Lethal assistance? Lethal to who I wonder...
Adam,
Very respectfully if you are going to suggest the US should not remove troops from South Korea it would be helpful to go into some detail as to why. I will do so on why they should be removed. I did not do so previously because it seems ridiculously obvious to most Americans as to why this should be done that it seems a no brainer.
1.) The armistice ending the Korean conflict was signed in 1952 I believe. As such, US forces have been in South Korea for over 60 years. When the armistice was implemented I doubt anyone on either side expected US troops to be there this long. It's long past time for South Korean forces to be able to stand up and fully handle their own defense needs.
2.) A poll a few years back indicated that 33% of South Korean officers believe the US to be the main enemy, 34% believe North Korea to be the main enemy, and the other 33% are either undecided or chose not to answer the question. Should a hot war break out our warriors could find themselves fighting both the South Korans and the North Koreans. At the very least, having officers within the ranks of our supposed "ally" who wish to harm our people is not a good situation and faces them in even greater peril than they would already be in. As such, this raises significant questions as to the trustworthiness of these South Korean "allies."
3.)When Operation Iraqi Freedom was launched, troops that were in SK were needed on the Iraq Front. We had to negotiate with SK to remove these troops. NEGOTIATE to remove OUR troops?!!? This is ridiculous nonsense. These troops are NOT South Korean troops nor or are they the property of the South Korean government. Such a stance by SK, indicates a lack of decency and respect towards the United States. Not a good way to behave towards an "ally" who is facing a grave threat to their national security. It borders on unreasonable to expect American troops to risk their lives to defend someone who does not respect us.
4.) The American military is badly worn down from continuing operations around the world to the point that even our own basic national defense is going to be problematic at best. It is unrealistic and borders on impossible to expect the US to make any kind of long range commitment to South Korean national defense.
5.) Having troops stationed in SK tends to have a corrosive affect on our relations with the South Korean people. See point 2. Additionally having these forces there tends to lead to a cycle of entitlement on the part of the SK government and its people. See point 3.
There may come a time when we and SK will need to work together to counter joint problems. As long as US forces remain in SK in the numbers they are, this type of cooperation becomes less likely and there is deep distrust on both sides. Again reference points 2 and 3. I could go on with more points.
I do not wish to be unreasonable to the defense needs of SK and given the nature of the situation a sudden and complete withdrawal may be unrealistic for them. If I were POTUS, I'd explain to the SK leadership in no uncertain terms that the US is fully withdrawing within 1.5 years from the date they are informed of this. We will help them during this transition in getting ready for their own defense even including helping them with a nuclear weapons program of their own to counter NK.
If they protest, I would gently at first remind them then forcefully if necessary the current situation came about over 60 years ago and was never expected to be permanent. Whose dumber? Us for thinking we could assume such a role in the national defense of another nation or them for allowing such and expecting it. I'd say SK. In any event stupid needs to end. Obviously we would want the discuss to be kept private to avoid tipping off enemies of the US and SK. One the forces are withdrawn, that should help the "alliance."
Daniel,
Lethal assistance to whom you ask. Most likely to the Ukrainian military. These seem like a bunch of incompetent boobs.
Post a Comment