Reuters: U.S. can focus on two theaters - Indo-Pacific and war in Europe, official says
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States will keep its focus on the Indo-Pacific despite the Ukraine crisis, the White House Indo-Pacific policy coordinator said on Monday, adding Washington has been deeply engaged in two theaters simultaneously before, including during World War Two and the Cold War.
"It’s difficult. It’s expensive. But it is also essential, and I believe that we’re entering a period where that is what will be demanded of the United States and this generation of Americans," the official, Kurt Campbell, told an event hosted by the German Marshall Fund of the United States.
"There is a deep recognition and intention here inside the government, in the White House, to sustain every element of our engagement in the Indo-Pacific,” Campbell said.
Read more ....
Update: White House Official Says US Can Focus on Two Theaters as It Did in WWII (Antiwar.com)
WNU Editor: The U.S. could not handle Afghanistan. How can they handle two major theaters?!?!?!?
That's supposed to be the case, but Biden cant focus on one thing. Har har.
ReplyDeletetired of winning?
ReplyDeleteNot as much as you losing.
DeleteI understand the response. However, it should also be understood that the US hasn't fought an actual declared WAR since 1945, and as a result we have forgotten how to win one. Too many stupid ROEs, second guessing, and contradictory objectives. If your ONLY objective is to win, as quickly and decisively as possible, then let the politicians deal with the aftermath, then it simplifies matters considerably.
ReplyDeleteoh, my. clever
ReplyDeleteNot as clever as you think you are!
DeleteNo way on this plnet we can handle 2 wars at once! We couldn't handle Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen at the same time and these were low key operations compared to an all out war in Europe and Asia. Afghan surge was 2 years and done as was Iraq. Then we cut and ran, especially Afghanistan. We don't have the money, manpower, motivation or equipment and especially the leadership to do it.
ReplyDeleteThese Dems, and dementia Joe would have sued for peace after Pearl Harbor and Bataan.
In mathematic or engineering a problem maybe impossible and have no solution of there are too many constraints imposed. Such a problem is called intractible. So any STEM graduates are bored all to hell. I apologize. However, with military operations or foreign policy do they every consider the concept. Is a conflict solvable if they apply too many constraints? One constrain is not calling a spade a spade concerning the Pakistani double dealing.
ReplyDeleteWould the honorable thing for a general with 20+ years to would be to retire and then critique the political establishment point by point. Outside of that given the constraints, the generals did about as well as can be expected.
Obama put it in neutral after his surge was defeated by the Pakistani ISI. What was reprehensible of military leaders is that they dragged their feet, when Trump gave them an out from the constraints. That is not attempt to solve the intractable problem and go home to regroup, refit and train for peer on peer conflict.
Following the company line of the Beltway, the generals fought Trump's lawful order because of Beltway honor and sensibilities.
evidence for what you claim?
ReplyDeleteas the profs would say evidence by cursory examination. If you are daft, I canna help ya.
ReplyDeleteno evidence. case dismissed
ReplyDeleteThe Pakistani ISI assisting the Taliban while the US pays Pakistan money is three constraints right there. Those constraints were implied and are known by well read, honest people. You are neither.
ReplyDeleteI would not expect a divorcee and failed professional to know much about anything.
And you're right!
ReplyDeletenot gay. not trans. not person of color...a divorced person! not to be trusted. There are so few of them. failed professional? boy do you have that one wrong?
ReplyDeleteNow try this: no nation that has nukes, ie Pakistan, Israel, US, Russia, China, France etc
has ever been invaded. of course, Taliban used Pakistan. and that is how Obama got and killed OSL when he was housed there after moving from Afghanistan and that is why we did not tell Pakistan we were going in the nail him.
Such a facile argument. Israel has had nukes since 1967 and it was attacked in 1973.
ReplyDeleteIndia regularly has border clashes with China and Pakistan. There was the Kargil War in which over 1,000 people died. So that meets the definition of a war.
South Africa was involved in war and it had nukes.
Russia and China had border clashes in 1969 up to 800 people died. That is very close to the definition of war. Russia almost launched nukes. If Russia had launched nukes, they would have invaded. The purpose would be to shorten a border, get some resources, get a more defensible border or just take stuff.
"Taliban used Pakistan." Not a true statement. You should have made that a commutative statement.
Did anyone call you gay, trans or person of color? Those thing are immaterial to the discussion. I got part of what I wanted. No prof that you are competent.
So maybe you should reconsider what you think you know.
China asked Russia to delay Ukraine invasion until after Olympics -NYT | Reuters
ReplyDeleteChina knew about invasion prior to it!
such good friends
alright girly boy with no accomplishment and a poor education
ReplyDeleteAfghanistan was Not a major build up or deployment especially toward the end and included massively restrictive ROE.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying I agree with the headline but even the recent RAND report concluded similar. Say what you will. At present state I would say the headline assessment is somewhat incorrect for the short term but with dedicated mobilization of industry and relevant resources it wouldn't surprise me.
^^^ +50
ReplyDelete