Report Warns That The U.S. Needs A New War Plan To Confront China And Russia

The current American way of war will not work against China and Russia. They have gone to school on our way of war, but DoD's concepts and weapons systems haven't kept pace. https://t.co/nKbqeZEdFC

— Christopher M. Dougherty (@C_M_Dougherty) June 12, 2019

Newsweek: U.S. Could Lose War With Russia, China Without Major Strategy Overhaul, New Report Warns

A new report has warned that America's military planning for potential conflicts with Russia and China is flawed, and argued that Pentagon's enormous budget will be going to waste unless it undertakes a major strategic overhaul.

In the report published Wednesday, Chris Dougherty of the Center for New American Security said America needs to develop a "new way of war" more suited to conflict with the world's great powers.

Though the Pentagon's 2018 National Defense Strategy stressed the need to pivot from a counter-insurgency focus to one of great power competition, Dougherty argued that the Defense Department is still investing its huge resources in "flawed concepts."

Read more ....

Update #1: America's Current War Plans for China, Russia Will Not Work, New Report Says (Military.com)
Update #2: US must develop ‘new way of war’ or risk ‘defeat’ to Russia & China – think tank (RT)

WNU Editor: The full report is here .... Why America Needs a New Way of War (Center for a New American Security). As to what is my take .... I get leery when I read a report from an organization that is led by people like this .... Victoria Nuland named CEO of Center for a New American Security (Defense News).

This Is The Pentagon Plan To Devastate Any Russian Or Chinese Attack

An F-35C Lightning II test aircraft conducts the first separation of a Joint Standoff Weapon C from an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. (U.S. Navy via Raytheon)

Popular Mechanics: The Pentagon Is Reviving Cold War “Assault Breaker” Concept to Thwart China, Russia

DARPA wants weapons that can counterattack enemy forces and buy the U.S. time.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is researching new long-range smart weapons designed to devastate attacking enemy forces, buying time for the U.S. to send reinforcements in a hypothetical future engagement.

The program, known as “Assault Breaker II,” mirrors a Cold War era program designed to stop Soviet armored spearheads poised to roll into Western Europe. The effort would consist of a combination of long-range sensors and bombers loaded with smart weapons designed to seek out and destroy tanks, ships, and other enemy systems.

Read more ....

Update: The Pentagon is reviving this hard-hitting Cold War strategy to devastate any Chinese and Russian assaults (Business Insider)

WNU Editor: It all comes down to having an arsenal of smart weapons to target against enemy forces.

President Trump's War Strategy Under Fire From Top Intelligence Officials And The Top Senate Republican

Image: U.S. President Donald Trump sits behind his desk as he announces a bilateral trade agreement with Mexico to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) at the White House in Washington, U.S., August 27, 2018. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo

The Hill: Trump war strategy takes one-two punch

President Trump’s strategy in Syria and Afghanistan took a one-two punch on Tuesday, first from his own intelligence officials and then from the Senate’s top Republican.

The top intelligence officials offered a contradictory assessment of Trump’s statement that ISIS has been defeated, warning that thousands of the terrorist organization’s fighters remain in Iraq and Syria and that the group is “intent on resurging.”

The warning was delivered by Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and CIA Director Gina Haspel in a hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee and an accompanying report on worldwide threats.

Read more ....

Previous Post: U.S. Senate Leader Offers Legislation To Keep U.S. Troops In Syria And Afghanistan (January 29, 2019)

WNU Editor: Democrats are also getting involved .... Dems reintroduce bill to prevent nuclear first strike without congressional approval (The Hill). As to what is my take on this split between the White House and the intel community/top Republicans. The Washington foreign policy/Pentagon/intel establishment is what got the U.S. into quagmires like Afghanistan and the Middle East, and it will not be these same people who will get the U.S. out. President Trump was elected as an outsider to shake things up, and to confront this status quo. And while I do not know if he will succeed, he has certainly made those who run Washington very nervous and worried.

When Will The Pentagon Stop Using 9/11 To Justify Their Military Strategy

Army Gen. John Nicholson. US Army

Paul Szoldra, Task & Purpose: You Can Always Tell When Generals Don’t Have A Good Answer: They Invoke 9/11

You can always tell when a general doesn’t really have a good answer to a question. He or she will attempt to scare the shit out of you by invoking 9/11.

Army Gen. John Nicholson, the most recent U.S. commander in Afghanistan to kick the can down the road for two years before it’s picked up by the next guy, just became the latest general who cited preventing another 9/11 as a reason we’re still over there after 17 years.

I understand why he’d go for it. When you’re stuck in a stalemate and the reality on the ground hasn’t changed over the past year, despite a new “strategy” being in place, you have two options.

First, you can take Option A: Acknowledge the failure of this campaign to this point and tell the reporter what most members of the military think privately (and, some, publicly): that we shouldn’t be in Afghanistan anymore.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: It took the former Soviet Union 45 years before they realized that Germany no longer posed a threat .... and it was time to leave. I hope it does not take the Americans that long to realize the same thing about Afghanistan. On a side note .... at least the Soviet Union did not engage in nation building in East Germany.

U.S. Military Is Learning The Value Of Lower Cost Weapons In The War Against The Islamic State

U.S. Army soldier launches AeroVironment's Puma unmanned aerial vehicle during an Iraqi security forces' offensive on an ISIS position near the western edge of Mosul, Iraq, March 19, 2017. Source: Army/Staff Sgt. Jason Hull

CNBC: ISIS fight shows US military can use lower-cost weapons with lethal results

* The fight against the Islamic State is seen as a learning opportunity for the U.S. military as it looks to a future of a new kind of opponent in urban settings.
* Low-cost solutions, whether in precision weapons or lighter attack aircraft, provide advantages in an era of constrained budgets.
* Anti-UAV technology in demand as enemy develops more weaponized uses for drones.

The fight against the Islamic State has become a learning opportunity for the U.S. military as it looks to a future taking on very adaptable and resourceful opponents.

There's also a growing realization that lower-cost technology solutions, whether in precision weapons or lighter attack aircraft, can provide advantages in an era of constrained budgets.

"What we've discovered is we're using very expensive stuff like B-1s, F-22s and even MQ-9 Reapers with things like Hellfire missiles, when you can do a lot of this with cheaper aircraft," said Daniel Goure, a defense analyst and vice president of the Lexington Institute, a nonprofit public policy research organization based in Arlington, Virginia.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: Why is a $60,000 missile being used when an artillery round can do the same job. Why send in a B-1 bomber when a Hell-Fire missile fired from a drone can be used. But the big question is .... will the military change its ways. If the past is any indication .... we should not be optimistic.

Will Defense Secretary Mattis Deliver A Winnable War Plan Against The Islamic State And Taliban?

U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., June 13, 2017. REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein

Sandra Erwin, RCD: Mattis Under Pressure to Deliver "Winning" War Plan

The clock is ticking as the Pentagon faces a July deadline to deliver President Trump a fresh menu of options to defeat ISIS.

And as if that weren’t enough, lawmakers on Capitol Hill keep pouncing on Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to explain how the U.S. military intends to finish the job it started in Afghanistan 16 years ago.

Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson are drafting a plan to “combat ISIS and defeat terrorism,” President Trump said Monday during his first Cabinet meeting at the White House. “We're going to be having a news conference in two weeks on that fight, and you'll see numbers that you would not have believed.”

The president is levying huge expectations on Mattis and Tillerson, and analysts warn that it could backfire. But John “JV” Venable, a retired military officer and research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, described both these leaders as smart “long-ball hitters” who still can take the pressure of short deadlines and an impatient commander-in-chief. “The president has been looking for a policy on how to win the wars in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq for a while,” he said. “It’s a very complicated situation.”

Read more ....

WNU Editor: The war against the Islamic State has made progress since the end of last year. I expect Defense Secretary Mattis will recommend that current U.S. military strategy and deployments be continued. As for his Afghan plan .... I am willing to bet that he is going produce a plan that will have a lot of caveats. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has already mentioned the need to get regional players involved on ending the Afghan war .... specifically (I guess) Pakistan and the need to get rid of the safe sanctuaries that exist for the Taliban on the border. He has also mentioned the problem of Afghan corruption and how the sectarian divisions with the country are not helping the war effort .... problems that only the Afghans can solve. Still .... my prediction is that Defense Secretary Mattis will recommend the  deployment  of only  enough soldiers to stop the expansion of the Taliban, and to then start the slow process of taking back territory. The time-frame for his ISIS plan will probably be only for this year. The time-frame for his Afghan plan will be for the rest of the Trump administration.

How Strategic Errors At The Presidential Level Can Result In Military Failures

Mark Moyar, Hoover Institute: The White House’s Seven Deadly Errors

Strategic defeat often results from an accumulation of tactical failures. Repeated battlefield setbacks can destroy an adversary’s capabilities, as befell Napoleonic France, or its will, as befell Britain in the American War of Independence. In such cases, military organizations may deserve at least some of the blame for the strategic loss, because in most countries the military leadership bears primary responsibility for training, equipping, and commanding armed forces, functions that are fundamental to tactical effectiveness. Military strategy, by contrast, is often set by civilian leaders, and in the case of the United States it is the statutory prerogative of the civilian commander in chief.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: The above post is from last year and it was written when President Obama was in office. The "Seven Deadly Errors" are ....

1. Excessive Confidence in Democratization
2. Poor Selection of Local Allies
3. Haste in Counterinsurgency
4. Over-reliance on Surgical Strikes
5. Refusal to Commit a Military Footprint
6. Refusal to Maintain a Military Footprint
7. Signaling of Retrenchment

President Bush was guilty of the first three points. President Obama was guilty of the last 4 points .... but in his last year as President he certainly did shift his strategy to correct these points .... a policy shift that (so far) President Trump and the Pentagon are continuing in Iraq and Syria. As for Afghanistan .... I would not be surprised if this strategy (of avoiding these Seven Deadly Errors ) will also me adopted to a larger degree than what is being done now.

On a side note .... from what I know .... I would say that the Kremlin and the Russian military have also adopted a strategy that avoids these "Seven Deadly Errors" in the Syrian conflict.

Hat tip Prairie Pundit.

President Trump Is Shifting More Authority Over Military Operations To The Pentagon

President Trump with Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, his new national security adviser, last month. General McMaster is shifting the National Security Council’s focus from military operations and tactics to strategic issues. Credit Al Drago/The New York Times

New York Times: Trump Shifting Authority Over Military Operations Back to Pentagon

WASHINGTON — President Trump is shifting more authority over military operations to the Pentagon, according to White House officials, reversing what his aides and some generals say was a tendency by the Obama White House to micromanage issues better left to military commanders.

The change is at the heart of a re-engineering of the National Security Council’s role under its new leader, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, and reflects Mr. Trump’s belief that the N.S.C. should focus less on military operations and tactics and more on strategic issues. A guiding precept for the president and his team is that the balance of power in the world has shifted against American interests, and that General McMaster should focus on developing foreign and economic policy options in concert with the Pentagon, State Department and other agencies to respond to that challenge.

The new approach to managing military operations was evident this month when a Marine artillery battery and a team of Army Rangers — some 400 troops in all — arrived in northern Syria. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis signed off on the deployments and notified the White House. But General McMaster neither convened a meeting at the White House to discuss whether to send the forces nor presented the Pentagon with questions about where, precisely, the troops would operate or what risks they might confront.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: As the New York Times explains at the end of the article .... in defense of the Obama administration they did give the Pentagon what they always wanted. I expect the same with the Trump administration .... but maybe .... and this is a big maybe .... a little faster.

Can The U.S. Army Fight A Major Conventional War?

Members of Chad’s army trained with American Special Forces last year. Credit Tyler Hicks/The New York Times

New York Times: Long Emphasis on Terror May Hurt U.S. in Conventional War, Army Chief Says

ARUSHA, Tanzania — When Gen. Mark A. Milley, the Army chief of staff, stepped off his jet into the sunshine here on Sunday, it was the first time the Obama administration had sent its top Army officer to Africa for a high-level meeting to get the continent’s fledgling militaries in shape to deal with growing terrorist threats.

As General Milley plunged into three days of talks with senior military officials from 38 African countries, the biggest question facing him was not how the United States would work with those militaries to contain the threats. Among them are four militant groups that American officials say are capable of carrying out attacks in Europe as well as across Africa: the Islamic State affiliate in Libya, Boko Haram in Nigeria, Al Qaeda in northwestern Africa and the Shabab in Somalia.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: I am sure the U.S. Army is more than capable of fighting a major conventional war .... but I sometimes wonder if the Army is ready to receive the massive casualties that such a conflict will entail. Fighting terror groups in Iraq or Afghanistan may result in a few casualties per day .... fighting a conventional war against North Korea (as an example) .... taht will probably be about a few hundred a day .... at least in the first few months. As to a conflict against Russia or China .... we are then talking about casualty rates and destruction on an even greater scale.

U.S. Waging A Number Of 'Small Wars' Against Global Terror Groups

CNN: U.S. special forces wage secretive 'small wars' against terrorists

Washington (CNN): President Barack Obama is increasingly calling upon Special Operations forces to carry out so-called "small wars" across the Middle East and Africa to challenge both ISIS and al Qaeda in places where the U.S. maintains a footprint beyond Syria and Iraq.

In his first trip overseas since taking command of U.S. Special Operations a month ago, Gen. Raymond Thomas told a Middle Eastern audience recently that "complex" fails to adequately describe the current security environment.

That complexity is leading the Obama administration to expand the use of small teams of Special Operators in various terror hotspots.

Thomas previously served as head of the secretive Joint Special Operations Command -- the unit that includes Navy SEALS, the Army's Delta Force and other covert Special Operations units.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: This blog is dedicated to covering wars and conflicts and the international political/diplomacy that follows .... but even I have lost count on how many wars and conflicts the U.S. is now currently involved in. The problem that I see with this policy is that as U.S. involvement escalates .... all of these conflicts are also escalating, with no end result on the horizon.

The Pentagon Strategy To Counter Both Russia And China Is Taking Shape

The Pentagon, headquarters of the United States Department of Defense, taken from an airplane in January 2008. Wikipedia

Sandra I. Erwin, National Defense: Pentagon’s Strategy to Counter Russia, China, Begins to Take Shape

The nation’s top generals and admirals will gather in the coming weeks to mull over ideas on what the Pentagon must do to close the gap as Russia and China continue to push the edge of their military capabilities.

These talks are likely to shape decisions on what investments, policy and organizational changes the Defense Department would have to make to offset adversaries’ advances in high-tech weaponry such as precision weapons and air defense systems.

The Pentagon fears China and Russia are gaining an “asymmetric” edge as they perfect their precision-guided weaponry and become poised to blunt the long-held dominance of U.S. warships and combat aircraft.

“Our competitors are approaching us in that capability,” said Air Force Gen. Paul J. Selva, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: Bottom line .... the Pentagon wants a massive increase in the defense budget.

The Pentagon's Third Offset Strategy

The Pentagon, headquarters of the United States Department of Defense, taken from an airplane in January 2008. Wikipedia

Kyle Mizokami, The Week: America's military is getting deadly serious about China, Russia, and North Korea

The Pentagon has a problem. After concentrating on guerrilla warfare for the last decade and a half, the U.S. military is entering a brave new world — one filled with new adversaries. Russia, China, North Korea and others have been building up air, space, ground, and naval forces over the last 15 years, and their progress is showing.

Russia is aggressively building new ships, tanks, and aircraft, while China is rapidly modernizing its air and naval forces. North Korea is honing its nuclear weapons program and constructing new long-range missiles, now capable of hitting the United States. The Pentagon needs a new strategy to deal with this.

Fortunately the military has one, and it's called the Third Offset Strategy. The First Offset Strategy, initiated in the 1950s, involved countering Soviet superiority in conventional ground forces with cheaper nuclear weapons. The Second Offset Strategy was conceived in the 1980s and involved using American technological superiority to compensate for greater Soviet numbers.

Read more ....

Update: New US Defense Budget: $18 Billion for Third Offset Strategy (The Diplomat)

WNU Editor: A lot of hope in this strategy ... and a reliance on new technologies that still have to be perfected.

The White House Does An About-Face On Defense Spending

Image: Wikimedia Commons/U.S. Army.

Politico: Republicans gloat over Obama’s about-face on defense spending

The administration will push for some of the same weapons it had earlier dismissed as not needed.

NAVAL BASE SAN DIEGO, Calif. — Just three months ago, President Barack Obama blasted lawmakers for pumping billions of dollars into weapons the Pentagon hadn’t requested.

Now his administration is touting some of those same weapons as crucial for combating the Islamic State and for deterring a rising China and a resurgent Russia.

The turnabout is causing a major credibility problem for the Defense Department ahead of Tuesday’s release of the president's new budget proposal, key lawmakers told POLITICO. Republican defense hawks spent the last year opposing the department’s efforts to retire the aging A-10 Warthog attack jet and stop buying Tomahawk missiles and F-18 Super Hornet fighters — the very weapons getting praise now from Defense Secretary Ash Carter.

Read more ....

Update: The Great Reversal: Obama's Military Buildup (Dov S. Zakheim, National Interest).

WNU Editor: I guess facts on the ground are telling the Obama administration (and the Pentagon) that they need to shift course and direction.

A Summary On The Pentagon's New Strategy To Defeat The Islamic State

 

Andrew Tilghman, Defense News/Military Times: This is the Pentagon's new strategy to defeat ISIS

It involves a lot of old-school war fighting and could require more Americans on the ground to support unproven allies. IRBIL, Iraq — The U.S. military headquarters here is outfitted with maps showing a "forward line of troops" — a FLOT, in military-speak — that divides northern Iraq's Kurdish region from territory held by the Islamic State group. The line is precisely drawn, following the contours of specific roads and berms. A mere 40 miles west, the terrain is pocked with trenches, fighting positions, razor wire and armed checkpoints. It's like a scene from Europe during World War I, one American official says.

It's a jarring change for the personnel who've spent much of their careers fighting on far more ambiguous battlefields. Steadily, though, they are coming to grips with it as, during the past several months, the Pentagon and the White House have fundamentally shifted their strategy for defeating ISIS. The way forward will mean potentially more key U.S. support troops on the ground to back friendly local forces who will wage the fight to retake ISIS-held territory.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: This was the same strategy that was used in defeating the Afghan Taliban in 2001 - 2002. Special forces allied with friendly militias backed by heavy U.S. air power. And while I am confident that with time this will probably produce the same result in the war against the Islamic State, the problem is what to do after the war .... which I suspect is not even being contemplated right now in the White House.

President Obama’s ‘Sunni Awakening’ Strategy Has Failed In Iraq

Image: The Economist

Washington Times: Obama’s ‘Sunni Awakening’ strategy flops as Iran’s Shias gain upper hand

The Obama administration admits its push for a “Sunni Awakening 2.0” to break the Islamic State’s grip on Iraq’s western Anbar province has gone more slowly than hoped, but officials say they’re not giving up on the effort.

Critics say the strategy so far hasn’t come close to replicating the success of the first awakening, which roughly coincided with President George W. Bush’s “surge” in early 2007. Under President Obama, there were no U.S. combat troops bolstering the current drive, while many tribal leaders key to the first awakening were assassinated when the American forces left Iraq between 2008 and 2011.

“It has been a very slow and painful process, and everybody would like to see this move more quickly,” one U.S. official involved in the current effort acknowledged Tuesday. “But we’re also realistic about it — we knew this was going to be a multiyear campaign when we started it.”

WNU Editor: Most of the original "Awakening" leaders are now dead, missing, or have fled. That pretty well sums up the results of U.S. strategy.

Pentagon Releases 2015 National Military Strategy For The U.S.

The Guardian: Russia and China pose largest security threats, says US military report

* ‘Low but growing’ chance of war with major power, report says
* Iran and North Korea also pose ‘serious security concerns’

America’s new military strategy singles out states like China and Russia as aggressive and threatening to US security interests, while warning of growing technological challenges and worsening global stability.

A somber report released Wednesday by General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warns of a “low but growing” probability of the US fighting a war with a major power, with “immense” consequences.

Russia has “repeatedly demonstrated that it does not respect the sovereignty of its neighbors and it is willing to use force to achieve its goals”, the 2015 National Military Strategy says.

WNU Editor: The Pentagon's 2015 National Military Strategy for the U.S. is here.

More News On The Pentagon Releasing Its 2015 National Military Strategy For The U.S.

Pentagon Releases New National Military Strategy -- Defense News
Dempsey Releases National Military Strategy -- US Department of Defense
Dempsey Discusses New Military Strategy, ISIL -- US Department of Defense
Chance of war with world power ‘low but growing,’ Defense Dept. says -- Washington Times
Pentagon’s new military strategy calls for preserving US dominion of the world -- RT
New Pentagon Strategy Eyes Russia, Long Fights Against Jihadists -- Foreign Policy
What does the US Military See as its Greatest Threat? -- The Diplomat
Dempsey on New Strategy: Global Disorder Trending Upward -- Seapower
Dempsey’s Final Instruction to the Pentagon: Prepare for a Long War -- Defense One

The Pentagon Is Split On How To Fight A War Against China

(Click on Image to Enlarge)

Ike’s Arsenal Eisenhower poured money into the Air Force to develop its Cold War triad of nuclear threats—land-based and sea-based missiles, ICBMs and bombers. The heavy spending didn’t let up under JFK. | Reagan’s Build-Up Claiming that the United States had “unilaterally disarmed” before he took office, Reagan oversaw a massive defense build-up. Some say the the Soviet Union’s struggle to keep up brought on its demise. | Bush’s Surge The historic peak of Army spending authority came during two land wars—in Afghanistan and in Iraq, where the military was in the midst of a 30,000-strong troop surge. Source: Department Of Defense, Budget Authority by Branch

Mark Perry, Politico: The Pentagon’s Fight Over Fighting China

The Joint Chiefs keep ordering up ambitious new war plans. But their biggest battle might be with each other.

At first, it’s hard to see Operation Desert Storm as anything less than an unparalleled American military victory. The battleship U.S.S. Missouri began the campaign to forcibly remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait by firing four Tomahawk cruise missiles at military command and control centers in Baghdad in the early morning hours of January 17, 1991. “I’ll never forget the day we launched these,” a Missouri crew member who witnessed the Tomahawk attack later wrote. “We listened to CNN radio from Baghdad after we had launched our birds. For an hour, everything was calm, but we knew sorties were on the way. Then all hell broke loose.”

In all, the United States fired 297 Tomahawk missiles from ships and submarines during the Gulf War, of which 282 reached and destroyed their targets. Nine of the missiles failed to fire, six fell into the water after their launch, and two were shot down. The Tomahawks’ carefully tabulated success rate of 94.94 percent was revolutionary, the most precise delivery of munitions on target in the history of warfare. And the Tomahawks were just one of an array of air assets used in the war’s earliest days to destroy Iraq’s military and leadership infrastructure.

WNU Editor: This is a long read, but it gives an insight into how Pentagon planners go about planning to fight the next war.

The Pentagon Is Looking For A New Post-Cold War Strategy

U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter testifies before a House Armed Services Committee hearing on U.S. Policy and Strategy in the Middle East, accompanied by U.S. Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey (R), on Capitol Hill in Washington June 17, 2015. Reuters/Carlos Barria

Reuters: Pentagon chief to push U.S. allies to ditch 'Cold War playbook'

U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter will urge NATO allies to "dispose of the Cold War playbook" during a trip to Europe this week, as the alliance adapts to a new kind of threat from Russia in the east and Islamic State to the south, U.S. officials said.

Carter heads first to Berlin, where he is expected to call for a more muscular global security role from Germany, Europe's largest economy. Germany remains hesitant to deploy troops abroad, seven decades after the end of World War Two.

"He will encourage Germany, under the firm leadership of the minister of defense, to increase their security role in the world, commensurate with their political and economic weight," a senior U.S. defense official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

WNU Editor: With a few exceptions (Yugoslav civil war, the conflicts in the Caucasus, etc.) Europe has experienced a period of relative peace and stability that is unusual when one looks at its long history of war and conflict .... and the reason why is/was simple .... the rules and understandings after the fall of the Soviet Union that kept the peace were understood and followed. But I do understand that we live in a different world today .... the crisis in Ukraine is making that point crystal clear right now .... and the collapse of the Post-Cold War order is something that will be a part of President Obama`s legacy whether he wants it or not. Unfortunately .... because of President Obama, Putin, and the mess that is still ongoing in Ukraine .... we are not in a better world because of it. As to the Pentagon admitting that the old "Cold War playbook" does not hold .... this is an admission that events have changed, and what has kept the peace in Europe since the early 1990s no longer holds. Being one who knows what it is like to live in a a "Cold War" .... this is a prospect that I do not look forward to.

The U.S. Is Now Actively Involved In At Least Five Wars And U.S. Officials Are Unsure On What To Do About It

President Barack Obama speaks to a crowd of Marines, sailors and family members on Camp Pendleton, Calif., Aug. 7, 2013. President Obama visited the base to thank the troops for their commitment to the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Michael Cifuentes

Michael Crowley, Politico: World War O

Obama took office vowing to end America’s wars. Now we’re in at least five, and U.S. officials are unsure what to do about it.

President Barack Obama’s expression of remorse on Thursday for the death of two hostages in a U.S. drone strike underscored one of the great frustrations of his presidency: His dream of extricating the U.S. from messy foreign conflicts remains just that.

Obama pledged in his 2013 inaugural address that “a decade of war is now ending,” but the numbers suggest otherwise. The U.S. takes regular lethal action in at least five countries. U.S. troops are deployed in three conflict zones. And America is directly involved in a pair of Arab civil wars.

Some administration officials fear that things will get worse before they get better, particularly in Ukraine and Iraq. But they are divided on how best to proceed, people familiar with the Obama team’s internal debates say — with top officials like Secretary of State John Kerry urging measures like arming Ukrainian government forces with Javelin anti-tank missiles, which can ostensibly be called defensive.

WNU editor: A sobering analysis on president Obama's war strategy/policy .... read it all.

What Is President Obama's Strategy To Combat The Islamic State?

Defiant: President Obama has once again refused to state that the fight against terror in the Middle East was a religious war because the 'overwhelming' majority of Muslims do not support that interpretation

Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times: Obama lacks strategy to stop Islamic State expansion

Syria airstrikes likely helping Bashar Assad stay in power, report said

WNU Editor: According to recent polls .... there is very little if any U.S. political or public support for a more active and robust U.S. military role in this conflict ... and I believe it is in this context that White House policy is being formulated. As to what is that policy .... I believe that the Obama administration's top priority is (and always has been) to minimize the involvement of U.S. ground troops in the conflict, and to focus instead on providing air support and the necessary intelligence coupled with military supplies. Will such a policy work .... on that issue I have my doubts. The Middle East has always been deeply divided along sectarian and political divisions, but the rise of the Islamic State has only made these divisions deeper, and absent a more robust U.S. leadership role .... backed by U.S. combat troops on the ground .... I just do not see any hope of any stability returning to the region in the next few years. There is also a part of me that believes that the White House is just trying its best to hold back the rise of the Islamic State .... at least for the remainder of President Obama's term .... and to then kick this ongoing and long term crisis to the next administration.

Update: The White House's reluctance to say that we are at war against radical Islam should also change .... Obama once again refuses to call battle with terrorists a war against radical Islam (Daily Mail). We are at war with an organization that justifies its existence based on its interpretation of a specific religion .... and it is in this context that we must address our war against them .... primarily focusing on why their interpretation of Islam is out of date and doomed to failure. But for reasons that I find hard to understand .... President Obama has chosen to not adopt such a policy, and to ignore persistent calls from Middle Eastern leaders like Egyptian President Sisi who believes that we are at war with radical Islamist militants.