President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama visit Fort Stewart. (White House photo)
Paul D. Shinkman, US News and World Report: Why Obama’s Army Isn’t Defeating Russia, China, ISIS
The re-emergence of longtime adversaries with conventional armies derailed the administration’s plans for a smaller, nimbler fighting force
President Barack Obama once ridiculed a political opponent for suggesting the military should look to its past to determine how it should fight today.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney based his 2012 White House bid in part on strengthening some basic elements of the military, including building more ships. During the last debate of the campaign that October, the Republican repeated his criticism that the Navy was smaller than it was in 1916, setting up for his opponent what would become a notorious shut-down line.
“Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military has changed,” the incumbent retorted, explaining how the military’s shrinking size was offset by increased lethality through modern inventions like aircraft carriers and submarines. “The question is not a game of battleship, where we’re counting ships. It’s ‘What are our capabilities?’”
Read more ....
WNU Editor: A sobering analysis on why focusing on the insurgency wars has harmed U.S. capabilities to face-up to the armies of Russia and China. The Pentagon is now reversing course .... making this my must read post for today.
4 comments:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2016/02/us-fortifying-europes-east-to-deter-putin-ttg.html
Jay. Thank you for the link.
The Russian "display" of their "Rust Bucket" military in Syria has all the mil pundits, pissing and moaning and (conveniently) forgetting history.
Rummy started the leaner "smarter" lighter military under Bush, because it was " The End of History", the US had secured it's place as the Worlds Top Dog and would never face another "peer" Military or Economic challenger for 100 years.
The US Military had to be smaller, smarter and lighter because it had to be air transportable world wide on a moments notice to quell the enevitable revolts as the natives resisted American hedgmony.
The US then went into Iraq by choice, with "the Army they Had", which was more than enough to win the battles, but too small, to heavy and too ignorant, to win the war.
All of the US's "wounds", to the military, to the economy, to their social structure, have been self inflicted wounds.
There's no reason that the US should be defeating Russia and China, no reason at all. As for ISIS, the US with its allies Saudi Arabia and Turkey, was instrumental in its creation, and then conducted a phony war against it.
Polls of US citizens, especially younger ones, indicate that they couldn't care less about this type of foreign involvement like the crazy idea of defeating Russia and Chiba. Absolutely crazy, without any basis in sanity.
Post a Comment