© AFP 2018 / YONHAP
Paul Sonne and Missy Ryan, Stars and Stripes/Washington Post: Could US fight dual wars in N. Korea, Iran? Strategists say military toll would be almost unfathomable
The seeming collapse of the North Korea summit and the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal have led top officials in the Trump administration to once again make veiled references to military action, with President Donald Trump most recently touting American might in a speech Friday at the U.S. Naval Academy.
But beyond the saber-rattling is a sobering reality well known by strategists and planners at the Pentagon: The unlikely, worst-case scenario of sliding into open armed conflict with both Iran and North Korea simultaneously would strain the U.S. military to a degree few Americans could fathom.
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has repeatedly warned that an open conflict on the Korean Peninsula alone would be catastrophic, resulting in the sort of warfare the U.S. military hasn't seen in generations. The outside chance of a conflict with Iran at the same time would present Pentagon leaders with logistical, tactical and personnel challenges unenviable for any commander.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: For as long as I can remember the U.S. military has always planned for the remote possibility of having to fight two full-scale regional wars at once .... a capability that I believe the U.S. still has. But the enormous cost to fight two major war .... and its aftermath .... I do not think the will-power exists in Washington to green-light two wars, and I doubt that the American public will support fighting these wars unless the case is effectively made by its leaders that they should.
16 comments:
If it doesn't involve occupation yes they can.
Well, in any case the power to make war remain within the Congress which is currently completely opposite for that. Only a very bad attack with many American soldiers dead could provoke an American public reaction the Congress can handle.
Might as well throw Germany in the mix, they are bound to reunite with their Aryan kin...
Which was the last war that Congress had the opportunity to Green Light?
Just a carpenter,
Georges W Bush went to the Congress for the 2nd Gulf War. H. Clinton vote "yes" and Obama vote "no".
There was no declaration of war, it's irrelevant
For terrorism we don't need Congress approval because that's already done under Georges W Bush who has the Congress approval.
"And the president should build a case." I couldn't have put this any better myself.
So far I haven't seen it. He and his team will need to explain the costs to the American people in terms of the millions of American lives that will be in peril and very likely lost. The financial costs will be enormous to.
Maybe we have to go to war with Iran. With the known costs and risks associated with it, in the best case scenario, it will be a hard sell. Trying to defuse this diplomatically no doubt will look like a good option to many.
Now can we fight and win a war against Iran and North Korea at the same time or even one of them. I would say we probably can "win" but millions of Americans will likely die and what do we get? Of course this assumes Russia and China stay out of it. If they don't or if only one of them gets involved, even the "win" becomes problematic.
The case does need to be made for such an action. The leadership will need to be upfront and honest with the American people.
Aizino,
Thank you for the reply. Insults aren't necessary. Simply state your case and the evidence behind it and how you arrive at your conclusions. I've noticed Fred results to Insults and character assainatiobs it is generally when he is losing an argument. In your case, it seems simply to be insulting. I have found the character assaination is often used when one's argument is dubious and the critic needs to be shut down somehow.
Actually my name is Robert Foshee. You may check out my website. www.fosheecpa.com
Who are you? Are you paid by a Republican think tank? There's nothing wrong with this of course.
The 10s of millions of lives in peril will be American civilians. The enemy will bring the fight here via proxies already here, "dirty bombs," and perhaps suitcase nuclear weapons. Of course we would expect our government to respond resulting in massive casualties on the other side.
Now that I've revealed my true identity, this line of character assaination should not be tolerated and should be rejected by decent people wishing to have frank conversations about these matters. I will continue to post under B.Poster but this should assist anyone wanting to know who I am.
As I stated, we need war with Iran? Be upfront, build the case, be honest about the costs which I think I have pretty well spelled out. Maybe I overestimate enemy capabilities. Finally, the lives of American citizens are very, very important. None of them should be used as pawns on someone's politcal chess board.
As always, thank you for the reply. You are correct about my surname being of French origin. I think with a screen name "Smith" makes it easier to hide one's true identity should they choose to.
Accusing me of not being genuine about who I am is a wild and reckless accusation. I've found that people who do such things either have a weak argument and are trying to avoid confronting it by trying to discredit the messenger, are trying to cling to an ideological position, or are trying to hide something themselves.
I find the screen name "Texas Patriot" interesting. If "pro-Russian" means we need to be very circumspect before poking fingers in the eyes of a nuclear armed power, then perhaps the accusation fits. For those who blindly take position without thinking them through and merely repeat what their handlers tell them to, these are at best partisan hacks or poorly trained seals.
I am aware of the "estimates." Given the propensity of US officials to overestimate our abilities while underestimating those of adversaries, I don't trust them. We are back where we started. If war with Iran is needed, build the case and don't understate the threat. Perhaps I overstate the threat. In any event, Americans are not to be used as pawns on anyone's political chess board.
Aizino,
Your last post is standard boiler plate stuff that could easily be put out by one of the think tanks that may be employing and paying you. Essentialky you seem to be saying "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here." Americans are beginning to catch on en masse to what a crock such an approach is.
Personally I prefer the positions espoused by men like George Washington and John Adams. Additionally I've explained here and elsewhere numerous times when we act to secure something we position the personnel in such a way as to maximize its security. We don't allocate resources in such a way that have nothing to do with securing the property and actually undermine security of the property.
I'd suggest looking at countries like Canada and Australia. How do they deploy their armed forces? They are more secure than America. We should study them. We might learn something.
There are times and places to fight. If so, reliable allies will be needed. Frankly we have a major problem here. Also, as I stated, the actions and why they are neccessary as well as the kniwn costs and potential costs will need to be explained to the American people.
As for "military training," my eyesight is poor. I did want to serve in this capacity. I have numerous friends and family members who have served and are serving. Many of them have lifelong injuries from combat duty. Many their friends have made the ultimate sacrifice. I will reiterate these men and women are not to be used as pawns on soneone else's political chessboard. We need to fight NK, Iran, or someone else? The government needs to make the case to the American people while keeping in mind we've been sold things in the past that turned out to be less than factual.
As for who the "greatest military" is, perhaps it's America. This cannot be "known" outside of an actual fight. Is America "screwed?" POTUS has made strides in turning the country around. Is it enough? I do think, if we don't get better leadership in a number of areas and soon, we are in trouble.
As a couple of asides, the negotiating actions by DJT with regards to NK appear to have been the stuff of brilliance of late. Essentially after having been betrayed by SK he's cut them out of negotiations to a large degree. When freed of that yoke, negotiations become much easier and are more likely to bear fruit. In any event, SK is on notice. I think they'll be more likely to resoect us in the future.
Also, when evaluating whether or not to go to war, ask "can we win?" "How competent and reliable are our leaders?" "How competent and reliable are our allies and their leaders?" For example, if the allied leaders are the likes of people like Macron, Merkel, May, and Tusk, this isn't a good situation and perhaps it becomes more imperative to explore options other than war than it might be if you have rekiabke allies. Oops!! I forgot arguably the biggest shump of all, Poroshenko..
Post a Comment