US admits it can no longer fight two wars at once

[Road_Warrior]

Not surprising really - the ravages of being fully engaged for the past 10 years in war in two separate theaters were bound to crop up sooner or later.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-0...y-plan/3759556

The United States will unveil a "more realistic" vision for its military later today, with plans to cut ground forces and invest more in air and maritime power at a time of fiscal restraint, an official said.

The strategic review of US security interests will also emphasise an American presence in Asia, with less attention overall to Europe, Africa and Latin America alongside slower growth in the Pentagon's budget, the official said.

Its biggest change is an acceptance that the United States cannot afford to maintain the ground troops to fight more than one major war at once, a move away from the "win-win" strategy that has dominated Pentagon funding decisions for decades.

The move to a "win-spoil" plan, allowing US forces to fight one campaign and stop or block another conflict, includes a recognition that the White House would need to ramp up public support for further engagement and draw more heavily on reserve and national guard troops when required.

President Barack Obama will help launch the review at the Pentagon on Thursday and is expected to emphasise that the size of the US military budget has been growing and will continue to grow in spite of the recalibration, albeit at a smaller pace.

Defence secretary Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are set to hold a news conference to flesh out the contents of the review after Mr Obama's remarks.

Pentagon spokesman Captain John Kirby said with the military winding down a decade of war that saw troops deployed to both Afghanistan and Iraq, it was appropriate to re-evaluate the role of US forces abroad.

"From an operational perspective it's an opportune time to take a look at what the US military is doing and what it should be doing or should be preparing itself to do over the next 10 to 15 years," he said.

"So yes, the budget cuts are certainly a driver here, but so quite frankly are current events," Captain Kirby said.

A congressional staffer said some lawmakers were worried that defence budget cuts, required by an August debt ceiling deal, would end up being more blunt than strategic and effectively erode the US military's power.

"We expect to see a strategy that's driven less by the threats we face than the math we face," he said.

I remember reading a declassified Pentagon OPPLAN in the late 1990's - early 2000's that focused on the doctrine (at the time) that the US military had to have enough resources to be able to fight two "major theater" wars in different locations on the planet at the same time - and win. This primarily centred on the Korean Peninsula and the Middle East, but I guess times change, and people and politics change with it...

[flappist]

I thought you were going to talk about the Republican Presidential preselections

[Bossxr8]

Don't you just love the way they plan to always be at war, like its just a normal thing to do?

[MITCHAY]

Depending on what happens and what you believe to be true they may have signed on the dotted line with Iran for another war.

[onfire]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Don't you just love the way they plan to always be at war, like its just a normal thing to do?

There's a line in the movie the Fifth Element were that bad guy is trying to justify the chaos he is about to cause. I can't remember the line, but the overall gist of it was that chaos/war would result in growth and continued growth. I guess the United States government and the men behind the curtains trying to control the economy would tend to agree.

[Mickxr8]

Part from the fact the USA will be crippled if they stop there favourite candy from coming through , diplomacy,soldiers and beating of chests counts for nothing coz they`ve got the bomb too. US is getting the bird flipped at em big time, hmm

[jjw]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Don't you just love the way they plan to always be at war, like its just a normal thing to do?

Better to plan for it that be surprised by it.

If 'normal' is the average state of affairs, some form of international conflict is therefore normal.

Therefore, unless you trust all nations to spontaneously agree to disarm, you'd better have a plan for defence.

[bungarra]

You can only have peace if you are prepared for war is the old adage and with Iran just wanting to provoke either the US or Israel into a new middle east war, better to be prepared for the consequences of what may arise.

[2011G6E]

Love the quote from Sean Connery in the movie "The Presidio"...he said something like the USA military being like a big ugly dog that makes a mess of the house, costs a lot to feed, and you don't really like it, but you're glad it's there when a burgler climbs in your window at 2am...that just about fits the military in most countries.

It's very old logic that says "don't get involved in a war on two fronts"...the Nazis in WW2 found out what a bad idea that was...not that they had much choice in it with the Allies from one side and the Russians breathing down thier neck from the other...

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by jjw

Better to plan for it that be surprised by it.

If 'normal' is the average state of affairs, some form of international conflict is therefore normal.

Therefore, unless you trust all nations to spontaneously agree to disarm, you'd better have a plan for defence.

Big difference in "planning for defence" and planning to invade another country.
The story relates to invading two countries... the USA has involved itself in just about every single major conflict since the 1900s.

[burnz]

i suppose the yanks have got to fill the void gaddafi left to help run the oil country.

[mik]

there`s a couple of interesting ....and somewhat disturbing video`s on the tube predicting US and europe to continue to go down the gurgler financially, and for US to go belly up in a big way, the guy also predicts US in the interim to end up in another conflict with Iran because of Irans threats to block oil supply,
De Ja Vu anyone?
the bloke explains his reasoning and it looks very convincing, most of US problem is (apart from being broke) according to this bloke is countries are deserting the US dollar, once demand is gone for the US $$$ they have very little to trade with and owe an impossible amount to pay back, where that leaves oz i don`t know.

[Jim Goose]

Before the invasion if Iraq, Saddam (under the UN embargo) was trying to convince all his oil producing neighbours to stop trading in US dollars and move to the euro....

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

It's very old logic that says "don't get involved in a war on two fronts"...the Nazis in WW2 found out what a bad idea that was...

Yet the US prosecuted WW2 on three fronts (Pacific, Europe and Mediterranean) and still managed to come out in front.

Anyhow:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-0...y-cuts/3760662

US president Barack Obama has unveiled his strategy for creating a leaner US military with an increased presence in the Asia-Pacific region.

The plan calls for preparations for possible challenges from Iran and China with air and naval power, while downplaying any future massive counter-insurgency campaigns like those that have gripped Iraq and Afghanistan for the last five years.

Despite plans to cut troop numbers and find half-a-trillion dollars in savings over the next 10 years, Barack Obama insists the military will maintain its superiority.

Mr Obama said there will be less emphasis on large ground wars, but the military will keep its capacity to react to all contingencies.

"We need a smart, strategic set of priorities, so yes, our military will be leaner," he said.

"But the world must know the United States is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats."

White House officials stressed Mr Obama was deeply involved in the strategy review and sought to portray the president as taking a careful approach to defence spending informed by the advice of commanders.

'Smaller and leaner'

Saying the country was "turning a page" on a decade of war, Mr Obama said the new strategy would increasingly focus on Asia, where commanders reportedly worry about China's growing military punch.

"We'll be strengthening our presence in the Asia Pacific, and budget reductions will not come at the expense of this critical region," he said.

Defence secretary Leon Panetta, appearing with Mr Obama along with top officers, said the strategy envisages a "smaller and leaner" force that will expand the military's role in Asia while maintaining a strong military presence in the Middle East.

According to the eight-page strategy document, the American military will work with allies in the Middle East to ensure security in the Gulf and counter Iran's "destabilising policies".

Counter-insurgency operations, like the bloody campaigns of Iraq and Afghanistan, will receive a lower priority under the new plan, enabling the administration to scale back ground forces.

The world must know the United States is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats.

Mr Panetta said "with the end of US military commitments in Iraq, and the drawdown already underway in Afghanistan, the Army and Marine Corps will no longer need to be sized to support the large scale, long-term stability operations that dominated military priorities and force generation over the past decade."

The review confirms what had already been signalled by defence officials - that funds will flow to aircraft and ships, while the US Army and Marine Corps will be drastically downsized after having expanded during a decade of ground warfare.

Washington's focus on Asia is fuelled by concerns over China's growing navy and arsenal of anti-ship missiles that could jeopardise America's military power in the Pacific and access to the mineral-rich South China Sea.

"This region is growing in importance to the future of the United States economy and our national security. This means, for instance, improving capabilities that maintain our military's technological edge and freedom of action," Mr Panetta said.

The strategy review suggests reducing the nuclear arsenal without saying how, amid calls from some lawmakers reduce the number of nuclear-armed submarines.

The review also hints at reducing the military's footprint in Europe but offers no details, saying "our posture in Europe must also evolve".

The new strategy comes ahead of the proposed defence budget for 2013 due to be released in coming weeks, which is expected to call for delays in some weapons programs, including the troubled F-35 fighter jet.

Despite talk of belt-tightening, the annual defence budget is at nearly $US700 billion ($681 billion) and Mr Obama said future military spending will still remain high, dwarfing that of other nations.

The next budget will be "larger than roughly the next 10 countries combined".
Australian implications

US ambassador Kim Beazley, a former defence minister, says Australia is expected to feature highly as details of the new US strategy become clearer.

"It's a big deal for us. It is a disciplined redirection of focus to maritime strategy, a disciplined redirection of focus to the Asia Pacific region. Both of those changes mean a lot for us," he said.

But Mr Beazley says he does not expect the shift to affect Australia's relationship with China.

"It is commitment to people having access to the essential waterways of the East Asian area, vital for their commerce. Half the world's trade passes through those areas," he said.

"It is American underpinning if you like of a resolution of any border conflicts and maritime border conflicts are particularly important in the South East Asian area in a way that accords with international legal principle and is not a product of forced measure.

"It is not a containment strategy. It is a strategy that is related to international good practice but it is international good practice that requires big players prepared to stand behind principle. That is what the US is doing."
Audio: Strategist talks about Australia's role (AM)

While the actual defence budget will not be released for a few weeks, it has also raised questions about Australia's purchase of the F-35 - the new generation fighter jet that has become America's most expensive weapons program.

But Mr Beazley says the Government will not allow any delays to affect Australia's air capabilities.

"The Australian Defence Minister has made very clear to the Americans publicly and privately, and he has made it clear to the Australian people, the Australian Government will not permit an air capability gap to grow," he said.

This latest development expands on the announcements made during Mr Obama's visit to Australia in November.

Then, it was announced that bases in the Northern Territory will host an increased US military presence in coming years.

Speaking in Perth this morning, the Greens Senator Scott Ludlum, says he remains concerned about the expansion.

"I'm concerned from the point of view of democracy, in that the Australian people were told, we weren't asked, and the people on the frontline are about to find out exactly what it means to have a US military installation in your backyard," he said.

"If this is part of some containment strategy around China then that really needs to be rethought as well.

"I've got real concerns if the US Government seems to be setting us up for the next cold war that that's not necessarily in our interests or in the interests of the region."

IMO this is all 'captain obvious' type stuff. Had the Irakistan wars not eventuated, a rescaling and rationalisation of the US military probably would have occurred anyway.

[Serial_Fool]

Meh, these aren't CUTS per say, but only reductions from projected increases. To actually cut you have to spend less than you did last year, and that just isn't happening with Obama (or the Neo-Con branch of the Republicans) in charge.

[Deco28]

I don't know about you, but i want America to have an unbelievably large defense force. At least they are nice to Australia unlike other countries..

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by Deco28

I don't know about you, but i want America to have an unbelievably large defense force. At least they are nice to Australia unlike other countries..

er um... and who has invaded us recently or attacked us????

You do know that in WW2 in Brisbane that US soldiers killed one aussie soldier and several hundred were injured after an all out brawl turned into a shoot out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Brisbane

The amount of times that all in brawls erupted whenever visiting US marines and navy visited Townsville during the 70s/80s and 90s was pretty disgusting.
Drug running, attempted murder, assaults, attempted rape and rape were quite common occurances each and everytime.

Nice to us?? Like how their farmers compete on a level playing field with our farmers?

If you think that billions are wasted in defence here in Australia, the US military wins hands down with TRILLIONS of lost money over the past decade, not to mention a damming report about how their stocktaking of their nuclear arsenal is just so pathetic its not funny.

The US military is seen as a money making scheme for corporations who deliver rubbish to the personel who are then killed or mamed. This then leads to low moral (hence why some of them act up and go nuts).

A bigger military????

Sure why not..... why whould they worry about free health care? good schools and education?

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by jjw

Better to plan for it that be surprised by it.

If 'normal' is the average state of affairs, some form of international conflict is therefore normal.

Therefore, unless you trust all nations to spontaneously agree to disarm, you'd better have a plan for defence.

These plans are for attack, not defence.

They don't seriously expect another country to invade them do they? This planning seems to indicate they will be attacking someone else soon, most likely Iran.

I think it would be a good idea if they bombed all of Irans nuclear research sites though, no need for an invasion.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

er um... and who has invaded us recently or attacked us????

You do know that in WW2 in Brisbane that US soldiers killed one aussie soldier and several hundred were injured after an all out brawl turned into a shoot out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Brisbane

The amount of times that all in brawls erupted whenever visiting US marines and navy visited Townsville during the 70s/80s and 90s was pretty disgusting.
Drug running, attempted murder, assaults, attempted rape and rape were quite common occurances each and everytime.

Nice to us?? Like how their farmers compete on a level playing field with our farmers?

If you think that billions are wasted in defence here in Australia, the US military wins hands down with TRILLIONS of lost money over the past decade, not to mention a damming report about how their stocktaking of their nuclear arsenal is just so pathetic its not funny.

The US military is seen as a money making scheme for corporations who deliver rubbish to the personel who are then killed or mamed. This then leads to low moral (hence why some of them act up and go nuts).

A bigger military????

Sure why not..... why whould they worry about free health care? good schools and education?

I've seen nothing of what you say in any Hollywood movie so I don't know where you get your facts from.

Edit: Yay to America... USA! USA! USA!

[Road_Warrior]

OK you nice AFF members - here's the official report. Happy reading, hyuk

http://www.militarytimes.com/static/...nce-010512.pdf

[z80]

Originally Posted by Deco28

I don't know about you, but i want America to have an unbelievably large defense force. At least they are nice to Australia unlike other countries..

Hmmm....If I told you that whoever "protects" us Aussies also protects most of the world's Uranium production would you be surprised?

The yanks aren't silly...the next big thing is nuclear power.
We produce most of it.

Hilary clinton admitted recently that the US would only deploy their troopps to assist us in any conflict if it served American interests.

So..yeah...we'll be safe till the green glowing stuff runs out....

[ford man xf]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

er um... and who has invaded us recently or attacked us????

And why would that be I wonder? Perhaps the fact we have the USA as an Ally was a pretty important deterant to any agressor???

Any ideas on how much more the Australian Defense Force budget would have to be if we did not have important Allies such as the USA, do you not understand that Australia is involved in Iraq & Afghanistan for a reason, both of those countries don't pose a direct threat to Australia, we are there supporting an Ally which provides Australia with protection.

If you had it your way we would probably be flying a red flag

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by ford man xf

And why would that be I wonder? Perhaps the fact we have the USA as an Ally was a pretty important deterant to any agressor???

Any ideas on how much more the Australian Defense Force budget would have to be if we did not have important Allies such as the USA, do you not understand that Australia is involved in Iraq & Afghanistan for a reason, both of those countries don't pose a direct threat to Australia, we are there supporting an Ally which provides Australia with protection.

If you had it your way we would probably be flying a red flag

My question was posed to deco28 who says that other countries have been agressive to Australia, as opposed to the USA which has been "nice" to us.

Im asking WHO has been agressive towards us.... and when?
Japan? WW2?

Your comment that we simply went to war because the US protects us is very... ummm....far from the truth.

[ltd_on20s]

Originally Posted by bungarra

You can only have peace if you are prepared for war is the old adage and with Iran just wanting to provoke either the US or Israel into a new middle east war, better to be prepared for the consequences of what may arise.

ugh.

here we go again.

has it ever occurred to you israel and the US might be trying to provoke iran?

" better to be prepared for the consequences of what may arise."

yes, be prepared, because iran is far more formidable, and smarter then people think.

[ltd_on20s]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

These plans are for attack, not defence.

They don't seriously expect another country to invade them do they? This planning seems to indicate they will be attacking someone else soon, most likely Iran.

I think it would be a good idea if they bombed all of Irans nuclear research sites though, no need for an invasion.

such the mental competency of people wishing death and destruction upon others.

just bomb them, it'll be alright.

then people like you will complain when iran sends a bunch of frogmen to blow up power plants in australia.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by ltd_on20s

such the mental competency of people wishing death and destruction upon others.

just bomb them, it'll be alright.

then people like you will complain when iran sends a bunch of frogmen to blow up power plants in australia.

Quite agree...

The USA has been using a "policy" of "strike first" before their so-called "enemys" can.... The excuse for invading IRAQ was that it had WMDs and that a strike against the USA was imminent (George Bushes speech prior to the invasion).

Sadly the WMDs were a lie and proven to be a lie.

But people would say.. oh its better to attack them first because they might attack us!

With that sort of mentality and thinking we can use this example:

You dont get along with your neighbour and you believe your neighbour has a gun and is going to shoot you, but you dont have proof of this. For weeks nothing happens but you stew on it believing your neighbour is going to shoot you. You then go out and buy a gun yourself and decide that your going to shoot him before he shoots you.

You then jump the fence and enter his house and shoot him dead...
Police find no gun in the mans house.
Do you believe your actions were justified?

Same could be said if your walking along a street at night and another person is walking towards you. He starts eyeing you off or so you believe.
You decide he is mugger and then smash his jaw as he walks past you without him provoking you....

Sadly beating up people for fun seems to be a pass time for some, yet its not seen as acceptable.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Quite agree...

The USA has been using a "policy" of "strike first" before their so-called "enemys" can.... The excuse for invading IRAQ was that it had WMDs and that a strike against the USA was imminent (George Bushes speech prior to the invasion).

Sadly the WMDs were a lie and proven to be a lie.

But people would say.. oh its better to attack them first because they might attack us!

With that sort of mentality and thinking we can use this example:

You dont get along with your neighbour and you believe your neighbour has a gun and is going to shoot you, but you dont have proof of this. For weeks nothing happens but you stew on it believing your neighbour is going to shoot you. You then go out and buy a gun yourself and decide that your going to shoot him before he shoots you.

You then jump the fence and enter his house and shoot him dead...
Police find no gun in the mans house.
Do you believe your actions were justified?

Same could be said if your walking along a street at night and another person is walking towards you. He starts eyeing you off or so you believe.
You decide he is mugger and then smash his jaw as he walks past you without him provoking you....

Sadly beating up people for fun seems to be a pass time for some, yet its not seen as acceptable.

I think the problem is some people are too patriotic, however, they may be going on about it the wrong way without realising.

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country." – Teddy Roosevelt

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." – Teddy Roosevelt

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." – Mark Twain

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." – Mark Twain

link

[flappist]

USA has been the defacto "moderator" of most of the skirmishes between countries that bicker and argue over almost anything and refuse to accept that any of their ideas could possibly be not the absolute truth while constantly copping criticism and complaints of bias and unfair action over their peace keeping efforts from the worst offenders.

I am beginning to understand the how they feel.

CLOSED.

[russellw]

Originally Posted by flappist

USA has been the defacto "moderator" of most of the skirmishes between countries that bicker and argue over almost anything and refuse to accept that any of their ideas could possibly be not the absolute truth while constantly copping criticism and complaints of bias and unfair action over their peace keeping efforts from the worst offenders.

I am beginning to understand the how they feel.

CLOSED.

OPEN - it's been an interesting discussion and while it is sailing close to the T&C I'm happy to allow it to continue as long as everyone shows respect for the opinions of others.

Cheers
Russ

[Franco Cozzo]

Its wrong to assume Israel is provoking arguments and fights in the middle east, in MOST cases, if not all, Israel has defended itself, mainly its the other nations around them who start the fighting and Israel just defends itself. If you where in an Israel's situation, would you blame them for how they act? Everyone around them wants them dead.

My Israeli friend (who served in the IDF from 2000-2004) told me it was America keeping things in check, as at one point they came VERY close to wiping Iran off the map for good as things where flaring up big time between them both politically.

Australia thinks its some big player world wide and people brag about how good they think the ADF is, the only "big player" we are is when it comes to minerals, I'd be surprised if we could even defend ourselves if something did happen.

I'd rather send our troops to some war for the USA's benefit if that means they send us some help WHEN/IF we really need it.